Atty. Docket No, UN-NP-SA-001
`US S/N 12/272,570
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Appl. no.:
`
` 12/272.570
`
`Conf.no.
`
`6547
`
`Applicant: Ric B. Richardson
`
`Art Unit:
`
`2432
`
`Filed:
`
`November 17, 2008
`
`Examiner: Gilberto Barron, Jr.
`
`Title:
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADJUSTABLE LICENSING OF DIGITAL
`PRODUCTS
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA. 22313-1450
`
`DearSir:
`
`Applicant hereby submits, without admission of prior art effect
`
`thereof,
`
`form(s)
`
`PTO/SB/08 pursuant to the duty of disclosure requirements of 37 CFR §§ 1.56, 1.97 and 1.98,
`
`Applicant has listed publication dates on the attached form(s) PTO/SB/08 based on
`
`information presently available to the undersigned. However, the listed publication dates should
`
`not be construed as an admission that the information was actually published on the date
`
`indicated.
`
`It is respectfully requested that the Examiner initial and return a copy of the enclosed
`
`forms PTO/SB/08, and to indicate in the official file wrapper of this patent application that the
`
`documents have been considered.
`
`12/272,570
`
`1of2
`
`201
`
`201
`
`

`

`Atty. Docket No, UN-NP-SA-001
`US S/N 12/272,570
`
`This Information Disclosure Statement is being filed within three months of the U.S. filing
`
`date or before the mailing date of a first Office Action on the merits, therefore no statement under
`
`37 CFR § 1.97(e) or fee is required.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Sean D. Burdick/
`
`Sean D. Burdick
`Reg. No. 51.513
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc.
`2151 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
`Irvine, CA 92612
`(949) 825-5527
`
`12/272,576
`
`2 of 2
`
`202
`
`202
`
`

`

`PTO/SB/08a (07-039)
`Approved for use through 07/31/2010. OMB 0651-0031
`US. Patent and Trademark Office: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF GOMMERGE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respand to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number
`
`Substitute for form 1449/PTO
`(modified by Applicant)
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`(Use as many sheels as necessary)
`
`Complete if Known
`Application Number
`12/272,570
`
`Filing Date
`
`11/17/2008
`
`First Named Inventor
`
`Ric B. Richardson
`
`Art Unit
`
`2432
`
`Examiner Name
`
`Gilberto Barron Jr.
`
`
`
`Sheet|1 of|4 Attorney Docket Number|UN-NP-SA-001
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Examiner|Cite Document Number Publication Date Name of Patentee or Pages, Columns, Lines, Where
`Initials
`Applicant of Cited Document
`Relevant Passages or Relevant
`Figures Appear
`US-
`US-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`
`Examiner
`ian
`Patent D:
`it
`Publication Date
`Name of Patentee or
`Pages, Columns, Lines,
`Initials Where Relevant Passages|TPea ewe MM-DD-YYYY Applicant of Cited
`
`
`
`
`Gountry Gode — Number — Kind Gode
`Document
`or Relevant Figures Appear
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NON PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS
`
`Examiner|Cite Include name of the author (in CAPITAL LETTERS), title of the article (when appropriate), title of
`Initials
`No.
`the item (book, magazine, journal, serial, symposium, catalog, etc.), date page(s), volume-issue
`T
`
`number(s), publisher, city anci/or country where published.
`"Technical Details on Microsoft Product Activation for Windows XP," Internet Citation,
`
`XP002398930, August 13, 2001.
`
`
`
`
`Date
`Examiner
`
`Signature Considered
`
`Initial if reference considered, whetheror not citation is in conformance with MPEP 609. Draw line throughcitation if not in
`EXAMINER:
`conformance and not considered, Include copy of this form with next communication to applicant.
`
`203
`
`203
`
`

`

`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`
`
`Application Number: 12272570
`
`International Application Number:
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`System and Methodfor Adjustable Licensing of Digital Products
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Ric B. Richardson
`
`96051
`Customer Number:
`
`
`
`
`Filer: Sean Dylan Burdick
`
`Filer Authorized By:
`
`Attorney Docket Number:
`
`UN-NP-SA-001
`
`
`
`Receipt Date: 22-FEB-2011
`
`
`
`Filing Date: 17-NOV-2008
`
`Time Stamp:
`
`13:59:16
`
`Application Type:
`
`Utility under 35 USC 111(a)
`
`Paymentinformation:
`
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`no
`
`Document
`a
`te
`.
`File Size(Bytes)/
`
`
`
`
`Number Message Digest|Part/.zip| (ifappl.) Document Dasciiption File Name
`28363
`
`Warnings:
`
`SA-001-IDS_transmittal.pdf
`Transmittal Letter
`19306 187671162 (PabeF iedbeeoseyy
`ene
`
`Information:
`
`204
`
`204
`
`

`

`Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
`Filed (SB/03)
`
`SA-001_SB08_2.pdf
`
`9A SS7) Sfad 36 14329001 3afofclOe
`Aly
`
`Warnings:
`
`Warnings: Information:
`
`Information:
`
`This is not an USPTO supplied IDS fillable form
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Williams.pdf
`
`1378703
`
`AaaIb oetedoheledds brBh
`dbPoct
`
`
`
`Total Files Size (in bytes) 1447981
`
`This AcknowledgementReceipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO ofthe indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar toa
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`if a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary componentsfor a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown onthis
`AcknowledgementReceiptwill establish thefiling date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`Ifa timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903indicating acceptanceof the application asa
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this AcknowledgementReceiptwill establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`
`205
`
`205
`
`

`

`Atty. Docket No, UN-NP-SA-001
`US S/N 12/272,570
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Appl. no.:
`
` 12/272.570
`
`Conf.no.
`
`6547
`
`Applicant: Ric B. Richardson
`
`Art Unit:
`
`2432
`
`Filed:
`
`November 17, 2008
`
`Examiner: Gilberto Barron, Jr.
`
`Title:
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADJUSTABLE LICENSING OF DIGITAL
`PRODUCTS
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA. 22313-1450
`
`DearSir:
`
`Applicant hereby submits, without admission of prior art effect
`
`thereof,
`
`form(s)
`
`PTO/SB/08 pursuant to the duty of disclosure requirements of 37 CFR §§ 1.56, 1.97 and 1.98,
`
`Applicant has listed publication dates on the attached form(s) PTO/SB/08 based on
`
`information presently available to the undersigned. However, the listed publication dates should
`
`not be construed as an admission that the information was actually published on the date
`
`indicated.
`
`It is respectfully requested that the Examiner initial and return a copy of the enclosed
`
`forms PTO/SB/08, and to indicate in the official file wrapper of this patent application that the
`
`documents have been considered.
`
`12/272,570
`
`1of2
`
`206
`
`206
`
`

`

`Atty. Docket No, UN-NP-SA-001
`US S/N 12/272,570
`
`This Information Disclosure Statement is being filed within three months of the U.S. filing
`
`date or before the mailing date of a first Office Action on the merits, therefore no statement under
`
`37 CFR § 1.97(e) or fee is required.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Sean D. Burdick/
`
`Sean D. Burdick
`Reg. No. 51.513
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc.
`2151 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
`Irvine, CA 92612
`(949) 825-5527
`
`12/272,576
`
`2 of 2
`
`207
`
`207
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Addu: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO, Box 1450
`Wwespla,goy
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`APPLICATION NO,
`
`13/272.570
`
`PILING DATE
`
`11/17/2008
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`Ric B. Richardson
`
`UN-NP-SA-001
`
`6547
`
`7500)
`G05 |
`.
`3
`Uniloe USA Ine.
`215] Michelson Ste. 100
`Irvine, CA 92612
`
`OSS/207 |
`
`
`
`rrr
`yr
`EXAMINER
`
`SHAYANEAR, ALI
`
`
`
`ARTUNIT
`
`2493
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding,
`
`The time period forreply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`05/05/2011
`
`PAPER
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`208
`
`208
`
`

`

`
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`12/272,570
`Examiner
`
`RICHARDSON, RIC B.
`Art Unit
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.126(a).
`in no event, however, may a reply betimelyfiled
`after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period tor reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED [35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 GFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)8] Responsive to communication(s) filed on 17 November 2008.
`2a)_] This action is FINAL.
`2b)EX This action is non-final.
`3)LJ Sincethis application is in condition for allowance exceptfor formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parfe Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 0.G, 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`4)] Claim(s) 1-25 is/are pendingin the application.
`4a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`5)LI Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`6)EX] Claim(s) 1-25 is/are rejected.
`7)LJ Claim(s)__ is/are objected to.
`8)L] Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)_] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`10)§] The drawing(s) filed on 17 November 2008 is/are: a) accepted or b)[[] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 837 CFR 1.121(d).
`1) The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`
`
`12)( Acknowledgmentis made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (A).
`a)_]All
`b)L] Some * c)] Noneof:
`1...) Certified copiesof the priority documents have been received.
`2.01] Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`1) ) Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) [_] Notice of Draftsperson’s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) [K] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date See Continuation Sheet.
`US, Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`4) C Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.
`5) CL] Notice of Informal Patent Application
`6) | Other:
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20110420
`
`209
`
`209
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-326)
`
`Application No. 12/272,570
`
`Continuation of Attachment(s) 3). Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08), Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`-2/22/2011,2/11/2011, 4/13/2010, 7/8/2009, 11/4 7/2008, 5/6/2009.
`
`210
`
`210
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`‘is
`
`Claims 1-25 are presented for examination.
`
`Priority
`
`2.
`
`Applicants’ claim for the benefit of the prior-filed Provisional Application
`
`60/988778 on November. 17, 2007 is acknowledged.
`
`Acknowledgement Of References Cited By Applicant
`
`a.
`
`As required by M.P.E.P 609 (C), the applicants submissions of the Information
`
`Disclosure Statements dated 2/22/2011, 2/11/2011, 4/13/2010, 7/8/2009, 5/6/2009,
`
`11,17/2008 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been
`
`considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609
`
`C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449initialed and dated by the examineris attached to the
`
`instant office action.
`
`The IDS filed on 4/13/2010, having prior art “A PAINLESS GUIDE TO CRC ERROR
`
`DETECTION ALGORITHMS", have not been considered since the applicant has not
`
`provided the exact date of the NPL.
`
`211
`
`211
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1017
`
`4.
`
`Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`Claim 25 would be directed to an appropriate article of manufacture within
`
`the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101 if the media would only reasonably be interpreted by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as covering embodiments which are articles produced from
`
`raw or prepared materials and which are structurally and functionally interconnected to
`
`the program in such a manneras to enable the program to act as a computer
`
`component and realize its functionality.
`
`In the instant case, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a
`
`computer medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory
`
`propagating signals per se in view of ordinary and customary meaning of computer-
`
`readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must
`
`be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re
`
`Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not
`
`directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating
`
`Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 Us. C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. A claim drawn to
`
`such a computer medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments
`
`may be amended to narrowthe claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a
`
`212
`
`212
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`rejection under 35 US.C.§101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
`
`
`Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the
`
`specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
`
`Applicants are advised to amend the claim as discussed above (see underlined
`
`text) to recite “A non-transitory computer medium" that would render claim 25 statutory
`
`under 35 U.S.C. based on the latest guidance available to the examiner.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 ofthis title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-4 and 7-9 and 12-24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Ahmad (U.S. Patent No. 5,925,127, hereinafter Ahmad) in view
`
`of Takanoet al (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0282511 A1, hereinafter Takano)
`
`As to claim 1, Ahmad discloses a system for adjusting a licensefor a digital
`
`product over time (Ahmad, Col. 2, lines 33-36, use of the computer program may
`
`be terminated after the elapse of the licensed use. The step of tracking the use
`
`of the computer program during the licensed time of use may include preventing
`
`213
`
`213
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 5
`
`unauthorized copying of the computer program), comprising: a communication
`
`module for receiving a request for authorization to use the digital product from a given
`
`device (Ahmad, Col. 9, lines 37-44, the CICO module 120 contains required
`
`licensing information for the program module requested by the user. CICO
`
`module is interpreted as a communication module by the examiner); a processor
`
`module in operative communication with the communication module (Ahmad, Col. 5,
`
`lines 33-43); a memory module in operative communication with the processor module
`
`and comprising executable codefor the processor (Ahmad, Col. 5, lines 33-36)
`
`module to: verify that a license data associated with the digital product is valid based at
`
`least in part on a device identity associated with the given device (Ahmad, Col. 10,
`
`lines 50-67, each CICO module has a CICO module identification number(CID).
`
`The CID preferably has two parts separated by a "-". The first part of the CIDis a
`
`unique identification number generated and encodeinto the CICO module by the
`
`Software Monitor module 140, and the secondpart is the identification number
`
`unique to the user's computer 20); in response to the device identity already being
`
`on a record, allow the digital product to be used on the given device (Ahmad,Col. 10,
`
`lines 59-67, the Software Monitor module 140 verifies the CICO module 120 has
`
`not been used before and then issues a randomly generated unique CID to the
`
`CICO module 120. After the CICO module 120 provides the Software Monitor
`
`module 140 with the licensing information for the rented program module 100);
`
`set the allowed copy countto a first upperlimit for a first time period (Ahmad, Col. 9,
`
`lines 3-11, alternatively, a usage count rate may be used wherethe userrents the
`
`214
`
`214
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 6
`
`program module for a fixed number of uses. For example, the user may payfor
`
`ten uses of a particular program module wherea single use is consumed each
`
`time the program module is run on the user's computer.
`
`It should be understood
`
`that underthe latter scheme, a maximum run time will be prescribed for each use
`
`to prevent the user from running the program module indefinitely under a single
`
`use) Ahmad doesnot disclose in responseto the device identity not being on the
`
`record and the license comprising at least one allowed copy count corresponding to a
`
`maximum numberof devices authorized for use with the digital product; and calculate a
`
`device count corresponding to total number of devices already authorized for use with
`
`the digital product; and when the calculated device countis less than the first upper
`
`limit, allow the digital product to be used on the given device. Takano discloses in
`
`responseto the device identity not being on the record (Takano, Paragraph [0058],
`
`whenthere is no registration of this terminal identifier) and the license comprising
`
`at least one allowed copy count corresponding to a maximum number of devices
`
`authorized for use with the digital product (Takano, Paragraph [0057], when the
`
`numberof terminals whichis allowed to play the contentis limited until five
`
`terminals by a content provider, there is need to prepare free spaceto register
`
`five terminal identifiers); and calculate a device count corresponding to total number
`
`of devices already authorized for use with the digital product (Takano, Paragraph
`
`[0058], the memory device 106 judges whether there is a space area able to
`
`additionally register a new identifier in the identifier registering area of the
`
`license 300 or not); and when the calculated device countis less than thefirst upper
`
`215
`
`215
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 7
`
`limit, allow the digital product to be used on the given device (Takano, Paragraph
`
`[0058], when a space area exists in the identifier registering area, the memory
`
`device 106 records this terminal identifier to the identifier registering area of the
`
`license 300 (603), and executesthe license transfer processing (604)) It would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify
`
`the method of Ahmad in view of Takano by showing the license comprising at least one
`
`allowed copy count corresponding to a maximum number of devices authorized for use
`
`with the digital product; and calculate a device count corresponding to total numberof
`
`devices already authorized for use with the digital product; and when the calculated
`
`device countis less than thefirst upperlimit, allow the digital product to be used on the
`
`given device as taught by Takano in order to records the terminalidentifier to the
`
`identifier registering area of the license and executesthe license (Takano, Paragraph
`
`[0058])
`
`As to claim 2, Ahmad in view of Takano disclosesthe digital product comprises
`
`software (Ahmad, Col. 8, lines 41-46, the invention allows a software program
`
`module rental service provider monitor use of rented software program
`
`downloaded onto a user's computer))
`
`As to claim 3, Ahmad in view of Takano disclosesthe license data comprises
`
`information that may be used to verify whetherthe license for the digital product is valid
`
`(Ahmad, Col. 4, lines 2-8, the Software Monitor module verifies the CICO module
`
`216
`
`216
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 8
`
`has not been previously used and receives licensing information from the CICO
`
`module for the computer program. The Software Monitor module verifies the
`
`license to use the computer program and issues an authorization message to the
`
`computer program)
`
`As to claim 4, Ahmad in view of Takano discloses the record comprises an
`
`authorization database (Ahmad,Col. 5, lines 36-40, these processes and operations
`
`mayutilize conventional computer components in a heterogeneousdistributed
`
`computing environment, including remote file servers, computer servers, and
`
`memorystorage devices)
`
`As to claim 7, Anmad in view of Takano discloses the processor module is
`
`adapted to, in response to the calculated device count equaling thefirst upperlimit,
`
`send a warning regarding the allowed copy count to the given device (Ahmad, Col. 14,
`
`lines 43-48, If usage time remains, the method follows the "YES" branch, at step
`
`690, and allows the user to continue use of the program module 100.
`
`If the
`
`licensed usage time has expired, the method follows the "NO" branchto step 700,
`
`and use of the program module 100 is terminated.
`
`If desired, a termination
`
`message maybe sentto the userprior to termination of use of the program
`
`module 100)
`
`217
`
`217
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 9
`
`As to claim 8, Anmadin view of Takano discloses the processor module is
`
`adaptedto, in responseto the calculated device count exceedingthefirst upperlimit,
`
`deny the request for authorization (Ahmad, Col. 9, lines 3-11, alternatively, a usage
`
`count rate may be used wherethe user rents the program modulefor a fixed
`
`numberof uses. For example, the user may payfor ten usesof a particular
`
`program module where a single use is consumedeachtime the program module
`
`is run on the user's computer.
`
`It should be understood that underthe latter
`
`scheme, a maximum run time will be prescribed for each use to prevent the user
`
`from running the program moduleindefinitely under a single use)
`
`Asto claim 9, Anmad discloses the processor module is adapted to: after the first
`
`time period has expired, set the allowed copy count to a second upperlimit for a
`
`second time period (Ahmad, Figure. 4, Col. 11, lines 43-54, Col. 12, lines 43-60);
`
`recalculate the device count; and whenthe recalculated device countis less than the
`
`second upperlimit, allow the digital product to be used on the given device (Ahmad,
`
`Figure. 4, Col. 10, lines 54-62) Ahmad doesnotdisclose in responseto the device
`
`identity not being on the record. Takano discloses in responseto the device identity not
`
`being on the record (Takano, Paragraph [0058], when there is no registration of
`
`this terminal identifier) It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art at
`
`the time of invention to modify the method of Ahmadin view of Takano by showingthat
`
`in response to the device identity not being on the record as taught by Takano in order
`
`to stop the transfer processing of license (Takano, Paragraph [0058])
`
`218
`
`218
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 10
`
`As to claim 12, Ahmad in view of Takano discloses the processor module is
`
`adapted to, in response to the calculated device count equaling the second upperlimit,
`
`send a warning regarding the allowed copy count to the given device (Ahmad, Col. 14,
`
`lines 43-48, If usage time remains, the method follows the "YES"branch,at step
`
`690, and allows the user to continue use of the program module 100.
`
`If the
`
`licensed usage time has expired, the method follows the "NO"branchto step 700,
`
`and use of the program module 100 is terminated.
`
`If desired, a termination
`
`message maybe sentto the user prior to termination of use of the program
`
`module 100)
`
`As to claim 13, Ahmad in view of Takano discloses the processor module is
`
`adapted to, in response to the calculated device count exceeding the second upper
`
`limit, deny the requestfor authorization (Ahmad,Col. 9, lines 3-11, alternatively, a
`
`usage count rate may be used where the user rents the program module for a
`
`fixed number of uses. For example, the user may pay for ten uses of a particular
`
`program module where a single use is consumed each time the program module
`
`is run on the user's computer.
`
`It should be understood that underthe latter
`
`scheme, a maximum run time will be prescribed for each use to prevent the user
`
`from running the program moduleindefinitely under a single use)
`
`219
`
`219
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 11
`
`As to claim 14, Ahmad in view of Takano disclosesall the elements in the claim
`
`above exceptthat after the second time period has expired, set the allowed copy count
`
`to a third upperlimit; recalculate the device count; and when the recalculated device
`
`count is less than the third upper limit, allow the digital product to be used on the given
`
`device. It is the matter of design choice to set the time period and the copy count to
`
`any numberas desired (example 3upperlimit or 4" upperlimit or 5" upperlimit) to
`
`allow the digital product to be used on the given device. It would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ahmadin
`
`view of Takano by showing after the second time period has expired, set the allowed
`
`copy countto a third upperlimit; recalculate the device count; and when the
`
`recalculated device countis less than the third upper limit, allow the digital productto
`
`be used on the given device in orderto provideflexibility to the use the software in
`
`different time period for the different numberof device.
`
`As to claim 15, Ahmad in view of Takano disclosesall the elements in the claim
`
`above exceptthat the third upperlimit comprises eleven authorized devices. It is the
`
`matter of design choiceto setthe limit to any numberof devices as desired (example
`
`11 devices, 12 devices and etc.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ahmad in view of Takano by
`
`showing the third upperlimit comprises eleven authorized devicesin order to provide
`
`flexibility to the use the softwarein different numberof device.
`
`220
`
`220
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 12
`
`As to claim 16, Ahmad in view of Takano disclosesall the elements in the claim
`
`above exceptthat the processor module is adapted to, in response to the calculated
`
`device count equaling the third upperlimit, send a warning regarding the allowed copy
`
`count to the given device (Ahmad,Col. 14, lines 43-48, If usage time remains, the
`
`methodfollows the "YES" branch, at step 690, and allows the user to continue
`
`use of the program module 100.
`
`If the licensed usage time has expired, the
`
`methodfollows the "NO"branchto step 700, and use of the program module 100
`
`is terminated.
`
`If desired, a termination message may be sent to the userprior to
`
`termination of use of the program module 100)It is the matter of design choice to
`
`send a warning regarding the allowed copy count to the given device in response to the
`
`calculated device count equaling the third upper limit. It would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Ahmadin
`
`view of Takano by send a warning regarding the allowed copy countto the given
`
`device in responseto the calculated device count equaling the third upper limit in order
`
`to provideflexibility to the use the software in different number of device.
`
`As to claim 17, Anmad in view of Takano disclosesall the elements in the claim
`
`above except the processor module is adapted to, in response to the calculated device
`
`count exceeding the third upperlimit deny the request for authorization (Ahmad, Col.
`
`9, lines 3-11, alternatively, a usage count rate may be used wheretheuserrents
`
`the program modulefor a fixed number of uses. For example, the user may pay
`
`221
`
`221
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 13
`
`for ten uses of a particular program module where a single use is consumed
`
`each time the program module is run on the user's computer.
`
`It should be
`
`understood that underthe latter scheme, a maximum runtime will be prescribed
`
`for each use to prevent the user from running the program module indefinitely
`
`under a single use)It is the matter of design choice to deny the request for
`
`authorization after the calculated device count exceeding the third upperlimit or 4" or
`
`5" and etc.) It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`invention to modify the method of Ahmad in view of Takano by denying the requestfor
`
`authorization after the calculated device count exceeding the third upperlimit in order
`
`to stop the use the software afterit's been used in certain numberof devices
`
`As to claim 18, Ahmad in view of Takano discloses the device identity comprises
`
`unique device identifying information (Ahmad, Col. 10, lines 54-59 — Col. 12, lines 7-
`
`10, computeridentifier stored as a part of unique CID)
`
`As to claim 19, Ahmad in view of Takano discloses the unique device identifying
`
`information comprises at least one user-configurable parameter and at least one non-
`
`user-configurable parameterof the given device (Ahmad, Col. 10, lines 54-59, the
`
`CID preferably has two parts separated by a"-". As is discussedin detail below,
`
`the first part of the CID is a unique identification number generated and encode
`
`into the CICO module by the Software Monitor module 140, and the secondpart
`
`is the identification number unique to the user's computer 20)
`
`222
`
`222
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/272,570
`Art Unit: 2493
`
`Page 14
`
`As to claim 20, Ahmad in view of Takano discloses the device identity is
`
`generatedbyutilizing at least one irreversible transformation of the at least one user-
`
`configurable and the at least one non-user-configurable parameters of the given device
`
`(Ahmad, Col. 12, lines 13-31)
`
`As to claim 21, Ahmad in view of Takano discloses the device identity is
`
`generatedbyutilizing a cryptographic hash function on the at least one user-
`
`configurable and the at least one non-user-configurable parameters of the given device
`
`(Ahmad, Col. 14, lines 49-64, the SM 140 will maintain an encrypted database in
`
`whichit will store the APPID, the CID, and the usage time remaining)
`
`As to claim 22, it recites the same limitation as claim 1. Therefore it is rejected for
`
`the same analogous reason.
`
`As to claim 23, Ahmad disclosesafter the first time period has expired, set the
`
`allowed copy count to a second upperlimit for a second time period (Ah