DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 03/11/2025.
Claims 1-11 are amended.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 1-11 have been examined.
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 .
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method, and claims 8 and 11 are directed to an article of manufacture.
Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “providing… licenses… receiving, … information … determining, …state… allocating… license… determining, …state… and deallocating… license….” The recited limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, specifically, commercial interaction or a mental evaluation as it relates to managing licensing. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.
Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As in contracting, based on certain terms and conditions, licenses are allowed to be used or taken away.
Accordingly, even in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “providing… licenses… receiving, … information … determining, …state… allocating… license… determining, …state… and deallocating… license…” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of contracting or a mental evaluation in license management based on received information as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a network, and/or merely uses a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9 and 10 discuss functions in more descriptive detail of the steps geared toward the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
Claims 6 provide descriptive language surrounding the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical filed; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9 and 10 are also rejected.
Claim 11 recites “A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for dynamic allocation of a license for accessing a target application”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, a “computer-readable storage medium” can include non-transitory and transitory storage mediums. The specification does not provide context of whether the memory claimed is non-transitory. Therefore, the claimed “computer-readable storage medium” can be directed to a signal per se. A signal is a carrier wave or other propagation media, according to MPEP 2106 II IV, however, there are four categories of invention: process, machine, article of manufacture or composition of matter, therefore, as a "signal" is not a category of invention nor a subset of one of the categories, it does not represent patent eligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72, 175 USPQ at 676-77.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites “A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for dynamic allocation of a license for accessing a target application, which when executed by a processing arrangement, cause the processing arrangement to execute steps of a method of any of claim 1”. The claim is unclear and indefinite as to what method of claim 1 the steps to be executed are referring to.
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 1-4, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borthakur et al. (US 20190163456) (“Borthakur”), and further in view of Brown et al. (US 20160140204) (“Brown”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 11, Borthakur discloses providing, by a license allocation server, a set of licenses comprising one or more license available to be allocated to the plurality of user devices, wherein number of available one or more licenses is less than number of user devices (Abstract; ¶ 27, 28, 57, 65, 71)
Borthakur- The platform instance 330 is configured to manage computing resources in the customer environment 302 to match the installed software components to demand from users within the customer environment and software entitlements (e.g., software licenses) for the computing network and its users. …The system 300 may avoid buying licenses for every potential user, and rather buy for the actual number of concurrent users. Responsive to a user launching a software component, dynamic license allocator module 344 may allocate one right, and deallocate when the user signs off. Since typically the total number of concurrent users does not equal the total number of users, dynamic license allocator module 344 could help save money on licenses. (¶ 71)
receiving, by the license allocation server, a first information for each of the plurality of user devices, wherein the first information is indicative of a usage state of the target application on a corresponding user device (¶ 65-69, 73-78, 89, 97)
Borthakur- For example, a discovery probe may be invoked 410 against a target device (e.g., the target device N 314) in a computing network under management (e.g., in the customer environment 302) to obtain information about configuration and/or status of the target device, including software components installed and/or running on the target device….The platform instance 330 can initiate discovery of computing resources in the customer environment 302 by instructing the agent device 320, possibly referred to as a management instrumentation and discovery (MID) server or discovery server 320, to invoke discovery probes and return probe data to the platform instance 330… In some implementations, discovery probes may be configured to interrogate the SCCM 322, which stores information about software components installed and/or running on one or more computing devices (e.g., target device 1 312 through target device N 314) within the customer environment 302. For example, a discovery probe may query the SCCM 322 to obtain data about the usage of software components installed on computing devices in the customer environment 302. (¶ 66, 78)
determining, by the license allocation server, if the usage state of the target application for at least one user device is an active state (¶ 65-69, 71-83)
Borthakur- The platform instance 330 may also maintain information about software entitlements (e.g., software licenses) held for and/or available for the customer environment 302 and its users… For example, the software components may be installed or uninstalled on computing devices in the customer environment 302 to match software entitlements held and observed or predicted software usage patterns... For example, invoking 410 a discovery probe may cause a database (e.g., the SCCM 322) in a computing network under management to be queried to obtain information about configuration and/or status of other computing resources in the computing network (e.g., target device 1 312 through target device N 314 and software components installed and/or running on those devices). (¶ 67, 69, 78)
when the target application for the at least one user device is in the active state, allocating, to each of the at least one user device, an available license for accessing the target application, and marking the at least one allocated license as unavailable from the set of licenses (¶ 71,77-84, 114, 120-124)
Borthakur- Responsive to a user launching a software component, dynamic license allocator module 344 may allocate one right, and deallocate when the user signs off…allocate 440 in order based on priority of the license metrics: 1) per named user (allocated), 2) per named device (allocated), 3) per user, 4) per named user (unallocated), 5) per device, an finally 6) per named device (unallocated); .. The reclamation rule parameters 1250 may include a notify user icon 1252 for the reclamation rule (e.g., when this icon is activated a user may be notified prior to a schedule reclamation of the software component assigned to the user)…. The reclamation rule parameters 1250 may also include an identifier of the reclamation rule, an active/enabled indicator (¶ 71, 84, 124)
determining, by the license allocation server, if the usage state of the target application for the at least one user device changes from the active state to an inactive state; and (¶ 71, 78-85, 114)
Borthakur- The software entitlement parameters and metadata 950 may also include a display name; a publisher part number; a product type (e.g., full); a metric group (e.g., common); active rights (e.g., a count in the units of the license metric 954 of the license rights currently being used or used during a recent period of time); an asset tag; a state (e.g., in use or unused); (¶ 114)
when the target application for the at least one user device changes from the active state to the inactive state, deallocating, for each of the at least one user device, the corresponding allocated license, and marking the at least one deallocated license as available in the set of licenses (¶ 71, 72, 78-86, 117, 124, 128)
Borthakur- Responsive to a user launching a software component, dynamic license allocator module 344 may allocate one right, and deallocate when the user signs off…allocate 440 in order based on priority of the license metrics: 1) per named user (allocated), 2) per named device (allocated), 3) per user, 4) per named user (unallocated), 5) per device, an finally 6) per named device (unallocated);… For example, commands may be sent (e.g., via network communications signals from the platform instance 330) to a computing device (e.g., the target device N 314) to cause a software resource identified for reclamation to be uninstalled. (¶ 71, 84, 86)
wherein a type of the allocated license is one of: a named license, a floating license, a read-only license(¶ 84, 91-96, 114, 125)
Borthakur- allocate 440 in order based on priority of the license metrics: 1) per named user (allocated), 2) per named device (allocated), 3) per user, 4) per named user (unallocated), 5) per device, an finally 6) per named device (unallocated);… The software entitlement metric results 538 may include summary results for a given software model and license type (e.g., per user, per device, etc.) indicating number of rights owned, rights used, rights needed, unused rights, and/or allocation status. (¶ 84, 96)
Borthakur does not disclose wherein the type of the allocated license is the read-only license if the usage history of the given user device indicates a read-only activity during a pre-determined time period prior to the allocation.
Brown teaches wherein the type of the allocated license is the read-only license if the usage history of the given user device indicates a read-only activity during a pre-determined time period prior to the allocation (¶ 131, 207-212)
Brown- The Read Only licensee 1527 may be able to view the information for any project to which they are assigned. (¶ 211)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Borthakur and Brown in order to provide user licenses in an efficient and way to provide user functionality (Brown; ¶ 82-84).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Borthakur discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining if the usage state of the target application for at least one other user device is the active state, and if at least one other license is marked unavailable from the set of licenses; and when the usage state of the target application for the at least one other user device is the active state and the at least one other license is marked unavailable from the set of licenses, reallocating, to the at least one other user device, the at least one deallocated license for accessing the target application (¶ 71-84, 114).
Regarding claim 3, Borthakur discloses generating a notification notifying about the deallocation of the at least one allocated license (¶ 78, 79, 86, 103).
Regarding claim 4, Borthakur discloses receiving a usage history of the target application for each of the plurality of user devices; and allocating, to a given user device, the available license based on a usage history of the given user device (¶ 69, 70, 73, 78, 79, 103, 104, 114).
Regarding claim 6, Borthakur discloses wherein the target application comprises a sub module and the one or more licenses available to be allocated provide access to use the sub module (¶ 84, 114, 124).
Regarding claim 10, Borthakur discloses wherein the license allocation server is further configured to poll the at least one user device to check if the usage state of the target application and if at least one of: the usage state of the target application changes from the active state to the inactive state, the target application is not responding, the at least one user device is not reachable, then to deallocate, for each of the at least one user device, the corresponding allocated license, and to mark the at least one deallocated license as available in the set of licenses (¶ 71-85, 92, 124, 128, 131).
Claims 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borthakur et al. (20190163456) (“Borthakur”), in view of Brown et al. (US 20160140204) (“Brown”) and further in view of Jones et al. (US 20180062921) (“Jones”).
Regarding claim 5, Borthakur discloses determining if the usage state of the target application for the given user device is the inactive state (¶ 71, 78-81). Neither Borthakur nor Brown teaches receiving a second information indicative of a status of an automated login feature for each of the plurality of user devices; determining if the received second information indicates that the automated login feature is enabled on a given user device; and when it is determined that the automated login feature is enabled on the given user device and the usage state of the target application for the given user device is the inactive state, disabling the automated login feature on the given user device. Jones teaches receiving a second information indicative of a status of an automated login feature for each of the plurality of user devices; determining if the received second information indicates that the automated login feature is enabled on a given user device; and when it is determined that the automated login feature is enabled on the given user device and the usage state of the target application for the given user device is the inactive state, disabling the automated login feature on the given user device (¶ 49, 50, 56-60, 70-72, 79, 86). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Borthakur, Brown and Jones in order to provide a licensing and access management system to control access to applications (Jones; ¶ 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Borthakur discloses wherein the usage state of the target application for the at least one user device is the active state, when at least one of: an executable process associated with the target application is implemented on the at least one user device; the executable process associated with the target application performs a predetermined number of actions during a predefined time period(¶ 70-81, 94, 114). Jones teaches at least one user device identification indicates corresponding at least one user logging into the target application (¶ 49, 50, 56-60, 70-72, 79, 86). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Borthakur, Brown and Jones in order to provide a licensing and access management system to control access to applications (Jones; ¶ 1-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gopireddy et al., (US 20180321928) teaches license allocation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, NEHA H PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/ILSE I IMMANUEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699