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 .
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.
This is a non-final action.
Claims1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received on 3/19/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Per claims 13-17, the applicant is advised to amend the claim to positively recite step(s) to avoid any confusion(s), i.e., intended result or use interpretation(s). For example, claim 13 should be amended to “13. The method of claim 10, wherein the method further comprises: monitoring usage of the license using a monotonic counter and based on a unique storage identifier mapped to a given licensee client device.”
Per claim 18, the term “the one or more usage policies” lack antecedent basis.
Per claim 20, the term “the one or more usage predetermined usage policy” lack antecedent basis.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are 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.
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 delivery module that delivers to or enables software … in claim 1;
a license usage collection module that collects data regarding usage … in claim 1;
one or more usage analyzer modules coupled to the license usage collection module for analyzing or auditing of usage based on adherence … in claim 1;
an adaptive factor computation engine that is used to modify the license under one or more predetermined options for usage policies … in claim 1;
license delivery module to provide the modified license in claim 2;
license delivery module begins with a default license for a given licensee client device or a given plurality of licensee client devices in claim 4;
the license usage collection module and one or analyzer modules monitors usage of the license based on a unique storage identifier mapped to a given licensee client device in claim 5;
the one or more analyzer modules are configured to detected tampering based on discrepancies or anomalies between counts or counter values read at the licensee client device and read at a remote server controlled by the licensor in claim 7;
anomalies detected by the fingerprint analyzer module in claim 8;
the step of collecting data is performed at a license usage collection module and the step of analyzing is performed at one or more analyzer modules coupled to the license usage collection module in claim 11;
the modified license is generated from an adaptive factor computation engine which feeds back information including the modified license to the license delivery module based on analysis in claim 12;
analysis performed by the one or more analyzer modules for usage for a given time frame in claim 12;
geo-location analyzer module to detect if a location locked license is used from multiple locations in claim 15;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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
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 1-9, 11, 12, and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 15, claimed expressions of a license delivery module that delivers to or enables software … in claim 1; a license usage collection module that collects data regarding usage … in claim 1; one or more usage analyzer modules coupled to the license usage collection module for analyzing or auditing of usage based on adherence … in claim 1; an adaptive factor computation engine that is used to modify the license under one or more predetermined options for usage policies … in claim 1; license delivery module to provide the modified license in claim 2; license delivery module begins with a default license for a given licensee client device or a given plurality of licensee client devices in claim 4; the license usage collection module and one or analyzer modules monitors usage of the license based on a unique storage identifier mapped to a given licensee client device in claim 5; the one or more analyzer modules are configured to detected tampering based on discrepancies or anomalies between counts or counter values read at the licensee client device and read at a remote server controlled by the licensor in claim 7; anomalies detected by the fingerprint analyzer module in claim 8; the step of collecting data is performed at a license usage collection module and the step of analyzing is performed at one or more analyzer modules coupled to the license usage collection module in claim 11; the modified license is generated from an adaptive factor computation engine which feeds back information including the modified license to the license delivery module based on analysis in claim 12; analysis performed by the one or more analyzer modules for usage for a given time frame in claim 12; and geo-location analyzer module to detect if a location locked license is used from multiple locations in claim 15 invoke 112(f) as described above. The claims are found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g. the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the claimed functions.
See January 2019 Federal Register notice on Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 that states, "When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See also MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI.
The dependent claims are rejected as they depend on the claim(s) noted above.
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, 2-4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 15, claimed expressions of a license delivery module that delivers to or enables software … in claim 1; a license usage collection module that collects data regarding usage … in claim 1; one or more usage analyzer modules coupled to the license usage collection module for analyzing or auditing of usage based on adherence … in claim 1; an adaptive factor computation engine that is used to modify the license under one or more predetermined options for usage policies … in claim 1; license delivery module to provide the modified license in claim 2; license delivery module begins with a default license for a given licensee client device or a given plurality of licensee client devices in claim 4; the license usage collection module and one or analyzer modules monitors usage of the license based on a unique storage identifier mapped to a given licensee client device in claim 5; the one or more analyzer modules are configured to detected tampering based on discrepancies or anomalies between counts or counter values read at the licensee client device and read at a remote server controlled by the licensor in claim 7; anomalies detected by the fingerprint analyzer module in claim 8; the step of collecting data is performed at a license usage collection module and the step of analyzing is performed at one or more analyzer modules coupled to the license usage collection module in claim 11; the modified license is generated from an adaptive factor computation engine which feeds back information including the modified license to the license delivery module based on analysis in claim 12; analysis performed by the one or more analyzer modules for usage for a given time frame in claim 12; and geo-location analyzer module to detect if a location locked license is used from multiple locations in claim 15 invoke 112(f) as described above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is void of any structural component rather the platform is described using another generic placeholder (see Fig. 2A). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The dependent system claims are rejected as they depend on claim(s) above and failing to cure the deficiency of the parent claim(s).
Per claim 3, the scope of the claim is unclear. The claim recites “… wherein the adaptive factor computation engine and a corresponding user interface has factors that is modifiable by the licensor for modifying the license based on current usage for a given time frame based on policies that provide incentives for less tampering by the licensee and promotes less churn or loss or licensee in view of inadvertent license violations.” Given the usage of “has”, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the corresponding user interface has factors that is modifiable. But one the other hand, it is unclear as to what the claim is attempting to modify “the adaptive factor computation engine” as the claim clearly defines the system to include the adaptive factor computation engine. In other word, the claim is rejected as the structure(s) are not organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
Per claim 5, the claim recites “one or analyzer modules” is unclear as it is unclear what one refers to given plain meaning of “one”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 provides step(s) in determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, 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. 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), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any additional elements in the claim must integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If not, the inquiry continues to see whether any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1, claims 1-9 are directed to a system, claims 10-18 are directed to a method (i.e. process), while claims 19-20 directed to a computer program product such as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, the claimed inventions are directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 10. A computer implemented method of adaptive licensing, comprising:
a) delivering or enabling a license and software for a licensee under the license to a licensee client device or to a plurality of licensee client devices;
b) collecting data regarding usage of the license from the licensee client device or from the plurality of licensee client devices;
c) analyzing or auditing of usage based on adherence to one or more predetermined usage policy options under the license;
d) modifying the license under one or more predetermined policy options based on the analyzing or auditing of usage to provide the licensee with a modified license in accordance with the one or more predetermined usage policy options that are active.
(Bold emphasis added for additional element(s))
The claim recites a process of modifying of a license that has been delivered to a licensee. The claim achieves this by a) delivering a license to a licensee; b) collecting data regarding usage of the license from the licensee; c) analyzing/auditing of usage based on adherence to one or more predetermined usage policy options under the license; and d) modifying the license based on the analyzing/auditing of usage. The purpose of the claim is either to provide more cost-effective license for the licensee or more robustly monetizable licensing. Instant specification further describes this business centric results on page 8, lines 18-21, i.e., “The embodiments herein provide a proactive and effective management of software entitlements that results in positive results for both the licensor and licensee in terms of increased monetization, customer satisfaction, and efficient utilization of software license”. As such, the claim recites certain method of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions and/or following rules or instruction in managing business relationship such as rights). The examiner also finds that collecting usage information, analyzing or auditing the usage information based on adherence to one or more usage policies under the current license, and updating the current license based on the analysis or auditing is mental process that can be performed in human mind with pen and paper.
Claim 1 and 19 are significantly similar to claim 1. As such, claims 1 and 19 recite abstract idea.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e., computer-implemented, devices, a system comprising a license delivery module, a license usage collection module, one or more usage analyzer modules, and an adaptive factor computation engine, and computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer code executable by one or more processors, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer. These limitations do not improve upon the system or its components individually or in combination.
Regards to the recitation of “software”, the additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the recited system or its components individually or in combination.
For these reasons, the independent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2 and 11-12 further expand on the abstract idea without further additional element recitation(s) that had been identified above.
Dependent claim 3 further expand on the abstract idea. The further additional element of user interface amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 4 also further expands on the abstract idea of beginning with a default license. The further additional element of usage count analyzer, a fingerprint analyzer module, and a geo-location analyzer module are recited at high level that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 5 further expands on the abstract idea of monitoring using identifier. The further additional element of one or analyzer modules amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 6 and 14 further expands on the abstract idea of creation of usage record and storing of the usage record at licensee premise or remotely or both each time the license is used. The further additional element of server amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 7 further expands on the abstract idea of creation and storage of usage records for subsequent collection and detecting tampering based on analysis of the usage records, i.e., counts or counters. The further additional element of server amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 8 further expands on the abstract idea of using analysis of identifier of the licensee corresponding to the license and modification of the license based on the analysis, i.e., deviations or anomalies detected and the usage policy. The further additional element of fingerprint analyzer module amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 9 further expands on the abstract idea of using encryption in sending information which is mental activity/mathematical concept without recitation of further additional element.
Dependent claim 13 further expands on the abstract idea of monitoring of the usage of the licensing using a monotonic counter (i.e., mathematical concept) and unique identifier. The additional element of storage and a give licensee client device merely describes the object of the unique identifier.
Dependent claim 15 further expands on the abstract idea of detecting usage based on location usage condition. The further additional element of geo-location analyzer module amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 16-18 and 20 further expand on the abstract idea of information collection, identification, and description of one or more usage policies that is used to analyze or audit the usage without reciting further additional element.
For the reasons outlined above, the claims are directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2-4, 6-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,892,900 (“Ginter”).
Per claim 1, Ginter teaches a system of adaptive licensing (see col./line 62/31-63/66): comprising
a license delivery module that delivers to or enables software for a licensee under a license at a licensee client device or a plurality of licensee client devices (see Fig. 2; Fig. 2A; Fig. 20; Fig. 77; col. 3, lines 23-25; col. 134, lines 10-28, VDE objects that are distributed including software and PERC);
a license usage collection module that collects data regarding usage of the license at the licensee client device or at the plurality of licensee client devices; one or more usage analyzer modules coupled to the license usage collection module for analyzing or auditing of usage based on adherence to one or more usage policies under the license; (see col. 2, lines 20-23, audits electronic information use; col. 3, lines 25-45, clearinghouse that gather usage information … usage information analyzers; col. 4, line 48, audit and analyze the use of content; col. 18, lines 50-53, auditing of use of electronic content as well as reporting information based upon content use; col. 35, lines 13-58, employ audit reconciliation and usage pattern evaluation processes that assess, through certain, normally network based, transaction processing reconciliation and threshold checking activities, whether certain violations of security of a VDE arrangement have occurred; col. 43, lines 4-20, collect audit information reflecting usage; col. 46, lines 25-27, how audit information about usage information … should be collected, reported, and/or used; col. 128, lines 46-49, information may be analyzed to detect cracking attempts or to determine patterns of usage outside expected (and budgeted) terms; col. 154, lines 5-11, usage maps can be analyzed to determine other patterns of usage … to reaccess an object for which the user previously paid for unlimited accesses (or unlimited accesses over a certain time duration); col. 154, lines 21-40, analysis of usage pattern to detect fraud; col. 230, lines 45-54, fine grain of usage reporting and the ready availability of usage records and reports in electronic form enables sophisticated fraud detection mechanisms to be built)
an adaptive factor computation engine that is used to modify the license under one or more predetermined options for usage policies based on the analyzing or auditing of usage to provide the licensee with a more cost effective license for the licensee or a more robustly monetizable license under a modified license; (see col. 9, lines 61-63, modify commercial relationships to accommodate the evolving needs of, and agreements among, themselves; col. 169, lines 1-26, the clearinghouse analyze the contained audit information to determine …; col. 169, lines 61-54-65, modifying a PERC to provide additional (or lesser) rights, etc)
As per claim 2, Ginter further teaches wherein a modified factor from the adaptive factor computation engine is fed back to the license delivery module to provide the modified license (see Fig. 2; Fig. 2A; Fig. 20; Fig. 77; col. 3, lines 23-25; col. 134, lines 10-28, VDE objects that are distributed including software and PERC; col. 9, lines 61-63, modify commercial relationships to accommodate the evolving needs of, and agreements among, themselves; col. 169, lines 1-26, the clearinghouse analyze the contained audit information to determine …; col. 169, lines 61-54-65, modifying a PERC to provide additional (or lesser) rights, etc).
As per claim 3, Ginter teaches the adaptive factor computation engine as recited in claim 1.
Ginter does not teach wherein a corresponding user interface has factors that is modifiable by the licensor for modifying the license based on current usage for a given time frame based on policies that provide incentives for less tampering by the licensee and promotes less churn or loss of licensee in view of inadvertent license violations. However, description of a corresponding user interface is not part of the recited system and therefore is outside the scope of the claim. Furthermore, the applicant is reminded that “for modifying the license based on current usage for a given time frame based on policies that provide incentives for less tampering by the licensee and promotes less churn or loss of licensee in view of inadvertent license violations” is intended use.
As per claim 4, Ginter further teaches wherein the license delivery module begins with a default license for a given licensee client device or a given plurality of licensee client devices and wherein the one or more analyzer modules comprises at least a usage count analyzer, a fingerprint analyzer module, and a geo-location analyzer module (see col. 9, lines 61-63, modify commercial relationships to accommodate the evolving needs of, and agreements among, themselves; col. 43, lines 4-20, collect audit information reflecting usage; col. 46, lines 25-27, how audit information about usage information … should be collected, reported, and/or used; col. 128, lines 46-49, information may be analyzed to detect cracking attempts or to determine patterns of usage outside expected (and budgeted) terms; col. 150, lines 60-66, ascending and descending count of use; col. 154, lines 5-11, usage maps can be analyzed to determine other patterns of usage … to reaccess an object for which the user previously paid for unlimited accesses (or unlimited accesses over a certain time duration); col. 154, lines 21-40, analysis of usage pattern to detect fraud; col. 230, lines 45-54, fine grain of usage reporting and the ready availability of usage records and reports in electronic form enables sophisticated fraud detection mechanisms to be built; col. 169, lines 1-26, the clearinghouse analyze the contained audit information to determine …; col. 169, lines 61-54-65, modifying a PERC to provide additional (or lesser) rights, etc).
As per claim 6, Ginter further teaches wherein the system creates record stored at the licensee premise or at a remote server or both each time the license is used (see abstract, to control and/or meter or otherwise monitor use of electronically stored or disseminated information; col. 43, lines 4-20, collect audit information reflecting usage; col. 46, lines 25-27, how audit information about usage information … should be collected, reported, and/or used; col. 143, 15, aggregate method that includes meter; col. 154, lines 5-11, usage maps can be analyzed to determine other patterns of usage … to reaccess an object for which the user previously paid for unlimited accesses (or unlimited accesses over a certain time duration).
As per claim 7, Ginter further teaches wherein the system creates a usage record stored at the licensee client device for subsequent collection by the license usage collection module, wherein the one or more analyzer modules are configured to detected tampering based on discrepancies or anomalies between counts or counter values read at the licensee client device and read at a remote server controlled by the licensor (see col. 2, lines 20-23, audits electronic information use; col. 3, lines 25-45, clearinghouse that gather usage information … usage information analyzers; col. 4, line 48, audit and analyze the use of content; col. 18, lines 50-53, auditing of use of electronic content as well as reporting information based upon content use; col. 35, lines 13-58, employ audit reconciliation and usage pattern evaluation processes that assess, through certain, normally network based, transaction processing reconciliation and threshold checking activities, whether certain violations of security of a VDE arrangement have occurred; col. 43, lines 4-20, collect audit information reflecting usage; col. 46, lines 25-27, how audit information about usage information … should be collected, reported, and/or used; col. 128, lines 46-49, information may be analyzed to detect cracking attempts or to determine patterns of usage outside expected (and budgeted) terms; col. 151, lines 5-12, counter; col. 154, lines 5-11, usage maps can be analyzed to determine other patterns of usage … to reaccess an object for which the user previously paid for unlimited accesses (or unlimited accesses over a certain time duration); col. 154, lines 21-40, analysis of usage pattern to detect fraud; col. 230, lines 25-30, detect whether or not it has become compromised … discrepancies may become evident; col. 230, lines 45-54, fine grain of usage reporting and the ready availability of usage records and reports in electronic form enables sophisticated fraud detection mechanisms to be built; claim 113).
As per claim 8, Ginter further teaches wherein the system uses a fingerprint analyzer module to analyze a fingerprint of the licensee client device corresponding to the license and modifies the license based on deviations or anomalies detected by the fingerprint analyzer module and the usage policies activated at the adaptive factor computation engine (see col. 2, lines 20-23, audits electronic information use; col. 3, lines 25-45, clearinghouse that gather usage information … usage information analyzers; col. 4, line 48, audit and analyze the use of content; col. 18, lines 50-53, auditing of use of electronic content as well as reporting information based upon content use; col. 35, lines 13-58, employ audit reconciliation and usage pattern evaluation processes that assess, through certain, normally network based, transaction processing reconciliation and threshold checking activities, whether certain violations of security of a VDE arrangement have occurred; col. 38, lines 22-24, difficult for tampered fingerprint to be interpreted valid; col. 43, lines 4-20, collect audit information reflecting usage; col. 46, lines 25-27, how audit information about usage information … should be collected, reported, and/or used; col. 128, lines 46-49, information may be analyzed to detect cracking attempts or to determine patterns of usage outside expected (and budgeted) terms; col. 131, lines 55-60, site ID for a given electronic appliance; col. 154, lines 5-11, usage maps can be analyzed to determine other patterns of usage … to reaccess an object for which the user previously paid for unlimited accesses (or unlimited accesses over a certain time duration); col. 154, lines 21-40, analysis of usage pattern to detect fraud; col. 190, line 7, fingerprint method; col. 230, lines 25-30, detect whether or not it has become compromised … discrepancies may become evident; col. 230, lines 45-54, fine grain of usage reporting and the ready availability of usage records and reports in electronic form enables sophisticated fraud detection mechanisms to be built; claim 113).
As per claim 9, Ginter further teaches wherein the system sends license usage information to the license usage collection module from the licensee client device or the plurality of licensee client devices securely using encryption (see col. 8, lines 1-7, VDE normally employs an integration of cryptographic and other security technologies (e.g. encryption, digital signatures, etc); col. 12, lines 31-38, secure communications means employing authentication, digital signaturing, and encrypted transmission).
As per other independent claims, i.e., claims 9 and 19, Ginter teaches a computer implemented method of adaptive licensing, comprising:
delivering or enabling a license and software for a licensee under the license to a licensee client device or to a plurality of licensee client devices (see Fig. 2; Fig. 2A; Fig. 20; Fig. 77; col. 3, lines 23-25; col. 134, lines 10-28, VDE objects that are distributed including software and PERC);
collecting data regarding usage of the license from the licensee client device or from the plurality of licensee client devices; analyzing or auditing of usage based on adherence to one or more predetermined usage policy options under the license; (see col. 2, lines 20-23, audits electronic information use; col. 3, lines 25-45, clearinghouse that gather usage information … usage information analyzers; col. 4, line 48, audit and analyze the use of content; col. 18, lines 50-53, auditing of use of electronic content as well as reporting information based upon content use; col. 35, lines 13-58, employ audit reconciliation and usage pattern evaluation processes that assess, through certain, normally network based, transaction processing reconciliation and threshold checking activities, whether certain violations of security of a VDE arrangement have occurred; col. 43, lines 4-20, collect audit information reflecting usage; col. 46, lines 25-27, how audit information about usage information … should be collected, reported, and/or used; col. 128, lines 46-49, information may be analyzed to detect cracking attempts or to determine patterns of usage outside expected (and budgeted) terms; col. 154, lines 5-11, usage maps can be analyzed to determine other patterns of usage … to reaccess an object for which the user previously paid for unlimited accesses (or unlimited accesses over a certain time duration); col. 154, lines 21-40, analysis of usage pattern to detect fraud; col. 230, lines 45-54, fine grain of usage reporting and the ready availability of usage records and reports in electronic form enables sophisticated fraud detection mechanisms to be built)
modifying the license under one or more predetermined policy options based on the analyzing or auditing of usage to provide the licensee with a modified license in accordance with the one or more predetermined usage policy options that are active. (see col. 9, lines 61-63, modify commercial relationships to accommodate the evolving needs of, and agreements among, themselves; col. 169, lines 1-26, the clearinghouse analyze the contained audit information to determine …; col. 169, lines 61-54-65, modifying a PERC to provide additional (or lesser) rights, etc)
Ginter further teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer program code, the computer program code when executed by one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform operations. (see col./line 62/31-63/66,).
As per claim 11, Ginter further teaches wherein the step of collecting data is performed at a license usage collection module and the step of analyzing is performed at one or more analyzer modules coupled to the license usage collection module (see col. 2, lines 20-23, audits electronic information use; col. 3, lines 25-45, clearinghouse that gather usage information … usage information analyzers; col. 4, line 48, audit and analyze the use of content; col. 18, lines 50-53, auditing of use of electronic content as well as reporting information based upon content use; col. 35, lines 13-58, employ audit reconciliation and usage pattern evaluation processes that assess, through certain, normally network based, transaction processing reconciliation and threshold checking activities, whether certain violations of security of a VDE arrangement have occurred; col. 43, lines 4-20, collect audit information reflecting usage; col. 46, lines 25-27, how audit information about usage information … should be collected, reported, and/or used; col. 128, lines 46-49, information may be analyzed to detect cracking attempts or to determine patterns of usage outside expected (and budgeted) terms; col. 154, lines 5-11, usage maps can be analyzed to determine other patterns of usage … to reaccess an object for which the user previously paid for unlimited accesses (or unlimited accesses over a certain time duration).
As per claim 12, Ginter further teaches wherein the modified license is generated from an adaptive factor computation engine which feeds back information including the modified license to the license delivery module based on analysis performed by the one or more analyzer modules for usage for a given time frame (see Fig. 2; Fig. 2A; Fig. 20; Fig. 77; col. 3, lines 23-25; col. 134, lines 10-28, VDE objects that are distributed including software and PERC; col. 9, lines 61-63, modify commercial relationships to accommodate the evolving needs of, and agreements among, themselves; col. 43, lines 4-20, collect audit information reflecting usage; col. 46, lines 25-27, how audit information about usage information … should be collected, reported, and/or used; col. 128, lines 46-49, information may be analyzed to detect cracking attempts or to determine patterns of usage outside expected (and budgeted) terms; col. 154, lines 5-11, usage maps can be analyzed to determine other patterns of usage … to reaccess an object for which the user previously paid for unlimited accesses (or unlimited accesses over a certain time duration); col. 154, lines 21-40, analysis of usage pattern to detect fraud; col. 230, lines 45-54, fine grain of usage reporting and the ready availability of usage records and reports in electronic form enables sophisticated fraud detection mechanisms to be built; col. 169, lines 1-26, the clearinghouse analyze the contained audit information to determine …; col. 169, lines 61-54-65, modifying a PERC to provide additional (or lesser) rights, etc).
As per claim 14, Ginter further teaches wherein the method creates record stored at the licensee premise or at a remote server or both each time the license is used (see abstract, to control and/or meter or otherwise monitor use of electronically stored or disseminated information; col. 43, lines 4-20, collect audit information reflecting usage; col. 46, lines 25-27, how audit information about usage information … should be collected, reported, and/or used; col. 143, 15, aggregate method that includes meter; col. 154, lines 5-11, usage maps can be analyzed to determine other patterns of usage … to reaccess an object for which the user previously paid for unlimited accesses (or unlimited accesses over a certain time duration).
As per claim 15, Ginter further teaches wherein the method further uses a geo-location analyzer module to detect if a location locked license is used from multiple locations (see col. 303, lines 3-31, what uses or geographical locations a document has been distributed … based on geographical location; col. 306, lines 5-15, trace the flow of a document from person to person, by physical locations).
As per claim 16, Ginter by disclosing monitoring uses of software using license, i.e., PERC, as disclosed in (col. 2, lines 20-23, audits electronic information use; col. 3, lines 25-45, clearinghouse that gather usage information … usage information analyzers; col. 4, line 48, audit and analyze the use of content; col. 18, lines 50-53, auditing of use of electronic content as well as reporting information based upon content use; col. 35, lines 13-58, employ audit reconciliation and usage pattern evaluation processes that assess, through certain, normally network based, transaction processing reconciliation and threshold checking activities, whether certain violations of security of a VDE arrangement have occurred; col. 43, lines 4-20, collect audit information reflecting usage; col. 46, lines 25-27, how audit information about usage information … should be collected, reported, and/or used; col. 128, lines 46-49, information may be analyzed to detect cracking attempts or to determine patterns of usage outside expected (and budgeted) terms; col. 154, lines 5-11, usage maps can be analyzed to determine other patterns of usage … to reaccess an object for which the user previously paid for unlimited accesses (or unlimited accesses over a certain time duration); col. 154, lines 21-40, analysis of usage pattern to detect fraud; col. 230, lines 45-54, fine grain of usage reporting and the ready availability of usage records and reports in electronic form enables sophisticated fraud detection mechanisms to be built) necessarily teaches wherein the method further detects and distinguishes for a given time frame between unreported usage and a license of software that was unused for the given time frame.
As per claim 17, Ginter further teaches wherein the method securely receives license usage information into a license usage collection module from the licensee client device or the plurality of licensee client devices (see col. 8, lines 1-7, VDE normally employs an integration of cryptographic and other security technologies (e.g. encryption, digital signatures, etc); col. 12, lines 31-38, secure communications means employing authentication, digital signaturing, and encrypted transmission).
As per claim 18, Ginter further teaches wherein the one or more usage policies comprises one or more of a general usage policy, a usage tampering policy, a duplicate usage policy, a fingerprint tolerance policy, a geo-location policy, license usage verification policy, or a user movement policy (see col. 2, lines 20-23, audits electronic information use; col. 3, lines 25-45, clearinghouse that gather usage information … usage information analyzers; col. 4, line 48, audit and analyze the use of content; col. 18, lines 50-53, auditing of use of electronic content as well as reporting information based upon content use; col. 35, lines 13-58, employ audit reconciliation and usage pattern evaluation processes that assess, through certain, normally network based, transaction processing reconciliation and threshold checking activities, whether certain violations of security of a VDE arrangement have occurred; col. 43, lines 4-20, collect audit information reflecting usage; col. 46, lines 25-27, how audit information about usage information … should be collected, reported, and/or used; col. 128, lines 46-49, information may be analyzed to detect cracking attempts or to determine patterns of usage outside expected (and budgeted) terms; col. 154, lines 5-11, usage maps can be analyzed to determine other patterns of usage … to reaccess an object for which the user previously paid for unlimited accesses (or unlimited accesses over a certain time duration); col. 154, lines 21-40, analysis of usage pattern to detect fraud; col. 230, lines 45-54, fine grain of usage reporting and the ready availability of usage records and reports in electronic form enables sophisticated fraud detection mechanisms to be built; col. 303, lines 15-30, permit distribution only to specific users, defined groups of users, defined geographic areas).
As per claim 20, Ginter further teaches wherein the one or more usage predetermined usage policy options comprises one or more of a usage tampering policy incentivizing less tampering, a duplicate usage policy incentivizing less tampering, a fingerprint tolerance policy, a geo-location policy incentivizing adherence to use at authorized locations, a license verification policy incentivizing accurate reporting of usage, or a user movement policy (see col. 2, lines 20-23, audits electronic information use; col. 3, lines 25-45, clearinghouse that gather usage information … usage information analyzers; col. 4, line 48, audit and analyze the use of content; col. 18, lines 50-53, auditing of use of electronic content as well as reporting information based upon content use; col. 35, lines 13-58, employ audit reconciliation and usage pattern evaluation processes that assess, through certain, normally network based, transaction processing reconciliation and threshold checking activities, whether certain violations of security of a VDE arrangement have occurred; col. 43, lines 4-20, collect audit information reflecting usage; col. 46, lines 25-27, how audit information about usage information … should be collected, reported, and/or used; col. 128, lines 46-49, information may be analyzed to detect cracking attempts or to determine patterns of usage outside expected (and budgeted) terms; col. 154, lines 5-11, usage maps can be analyzed to determine other patterns of usage … to reaccess an object for which the user previously paid for unlimited accesses (or unlimited accesses over a certain time duration); col. 154, lines 21-40, analysis of usage pattern to detect fraud; col. 230, lines 45-54, fine grain of usage reporting and the ready availability of usage records and reports in electronic form enables sophisticated fraud detection mechanisms to be built; col. 303, lines 15-30, permit distribution only to specific users, defined groups of users, defined geographic areas).
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Giner” in view of US Patent No. 6,567,107 (“Stannard”).
Per claim 5, Ginter teaches claim 1 as in above. While Ginter teaches wherein the license usage collection module and one or analyzer modules monitors usage of the license based on an unique identifier for a given client device (i.e., site ID that is fixed for a given electronic appliance) (see col. 131, lines 55-60; col. 221, lines 21-25, the site ID is preferably unique), Ginter does not particularly describe that the ID is that of storage of the appliance.
Stannard, however, teaches a license that includes the storage ID of the computer (see col. 10, lines 19-21, serial number of the hard drive of the computer included in the license).
Hence, as Ginter generally teaches the license usage collection module and one or more analyzer modules that monitors usage of the license based on an identifier for a given client device, it would have been obvious to include the technique of monitoring usage of the license based on any known identifier, including the serial number of the appliance, as the identifier used to identify the appliance as such technique is a simple substitution of one known technique for another, producing a predictable result rendering the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Giner” in view of US Patent No. 6,567,107 (“Stannard”) and US Patent Publication No. 20190182049 (“Juels”).
Per claim 13, Ginter teaches claim 10 as in above. While Ginter teaches wherein the method monitors usage of the license using a counter and based on a unique identifier mapped to a given licensee client device (i.e., site ID that is fixed for a given electronic appliance) (see col. 131, lines 55-60; col. 221, lines 21-25, the site ID is preferably unique; col. 151, lines 5-12, counter), Ginter does not particularly describe that the ID is that of storage of the appliance.
Stannard, however, teaches a license that includes the storage ID of the computer (see col. 10, lines 19-21, serial number of the hard drive of the computer included in the license).
Hence, as Ginter generally teaches the license usage collection module and one or more analyzer modules that monitors usage of the license based on an identifier for a given client device, it would have been obvious to include the technique of monitoring usage of the license based on any known identifier, including the serial number of the appliance, as the identifier used to identify the appliance as such technique is a simple substitution of one known technique for another, producing a predictable result rendering the claim obvious.
Ginter/Stannard does not particularly disclose the counter as being monotonic counter.
Juels, however, teaches a monotonic counter (see [0011], monitoring and auditing device usage by means of a monotonic counter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to include the monotonic counter as counter in Ginter/Stannard in order to ensure attacks in tampering of the counter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20080306786 discloses a system and method of managing, monitoring, and analyzing IP license usage in generating of a report containing the license usage analysis;
US 20160224905 discloses a system and method of for managing and optimizing licensing restrictions. A central system coordinate license assignment to plurality of users in accordance with a licensing agreement and reassesses the ratio after deployment and may adjust licensing allocation to better accord with usage behavior by the organization;
US 20200387584 discloses a system and method of software optimization using machine learning based user clustering. The disclosure discloses use of user behavior data with respect to usage of the software product to obtain a plurality of time dependent features and these time dependent features are processed using the machine learning model to cluster the users into a plurality of persona clusters. A number of each available license type for the software product for the plurality of users based on the persona clusters is determined. One or more policies can be determined for managing an allocation of the available license types for the software product to the plurality of users.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. 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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698