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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/4/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 and 5-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2015/0302186 hereinafter Suzuki) in view of Holloway et al. (US 2010/0299723 hereinafter Holloway).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses an authentication system that performs authentication and provides permission for use with limitation of a use permission period for a function of a device, the authentication system comprising:
one or more processors configured to function as (FIG. 1-5):
a determination unit configured to determine whether the permission for use of the functions has been provided (¶ [0038]-[0040]; i.e. detecting that the smartphone application has been activated); and
a controlling unit configured to control time set on the device in a state where the permission for use of the function has been provided (¶ [0042]-[0047], [0051]; i.e. authentication or use of the smartphone application is allowed when the user rewinds the clock to a time that is not before the first or previous activation time).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein, in a case where a request for rewinding the time set on the device by a first time period which is longer than a predetermined time period is made, the controlling unit does not rewind the time set on the device according to the request, and wherein, in a case where a request for rewinding the time set on the device by a second time period which is not longer than the predetermined time period is made, the controlling unit rewinds the time set on the device according to the request; wherein the predetermined time period is determined according to a software that is subjected to license management for the authentication system.
However, Holloway discloses wherein, in a case where a request for rewinding the time set on the device by a first time period which is longer than a predetermined time period is made, the controlling unit does not rewind the time set on the device according to the request, and wherein, in a case where a request for rewinding the time set on the device by a second time period which is not longer than the predetermined time period is made, the controlling unit rewinds the time set on the device according to the request; wherein the predetermined time period is determined according to a software that is subjected to license management for the authentication system (FIG. 2-5D, ¶ [0017]-0019], [0029]-[0030], [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Suzuki and Holloway in order to control clock wind-back recovery to allow or disallow usage of licensed applications (Holloway, ¶ [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki in view of Holloway discloses the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined time period is a range of rewinding time within a unit time (Suzuki, FIG. 3, ¶ [0042]-[0047], [0051]; Holloway, [0029]-[0030], [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki in view of Holloway discloses the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined time period is shorter than 24 hours (Suzuki, FIG. 3, ¶ [0042]-[0047], [0051]; Holloway, [0029]-[0030], [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki in view of Holloway discloses the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the device is performing time synchronization using a time synchronization system designated by the authentication system, the time set on the device is not changed even when a request for changing the time is made (Suzuki, ¶ [0068]; Holloway, [0029]-[0030], [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki in view of Holloway discloses the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the device is performing time synchronization using a time synchronization system which is not designated by the authentication system, the controlling unit does not change the time set on the device even when a request for changing the time is made (Suzuki, FIG. 3, ¶ [0042]-[0047], [0051], [0069]; Holloway, [0029]-[0030], [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki in view of Holloway discloses the authentication system according to claim 1, the one or more processors further configured to function as: a notification unit configured to notify a user of a limitation on rewinding of the time in a case where the determination unit has determined that the permission for use of the function has been provided (Suzuki, FIG. 1-4, ¶ [0015]-[0016], [0051], [0074]).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki in view of Holloway discloses the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where a request for changing the time set on the device has been made, the notification unit notifies the user of a limitation on rewinding of the time (Suzuki, FIG. 1-4, ¶ [0015]-[0016], [0051], [0074]).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki in view of Holloway discloses the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the use permission period has expired, the predetermined time period is set not to fall within the use permission period that has expired (Suzuki, FIG. 3, ¶ [0042]-[0047], [0051]; Holloway, [0029]-[0030], [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki discloses a control method for an authentication system that performs authentication and provides permission for use with limitation of a use permission period for a function of a device, the control method comprising:
determining whether the permission for use of the function has been provided (¶ [0038]-[0040]; i.e. detecting that the smartphone application has been activated); and
controlling time set on the device in a state where the permission for use of the function has been provided (¶ [0042]-[0047], [0051]; i.e. authentication or use of the smartphone application is allowed when the user rewinds the clock to a time that is not before the first or previous activation time).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein, in a case where a request for rewinding the time set on the device by a first time period which is longer than a predetermined time period is made, the time set on the device is not rewound according to the request, and wherein, in a case where a request for rewinding the time set on the device by a second time period which is not longer than the predetermined time period is made, the time set on the device is rewound according to the request; wherein the predetermined time period is determined according to a software that is subjected to license management for the authentication system.
However, Holloway discloses wherein, in a case where a request for rewinding the time set on the device by a first time period which is longer than a predetermined time period is made, the time set on the device is not rewound according to the request, and wherein, in a case where a request for rewinding the time set on the device by a second time period which is not longer than the predetermined time period is made, the time set on the device is rewound according to the request; wherein the predetermined time period is determined according to a software that is subjected to license management for the authentication system (FIG. 2-5D, ¶ [0017]-0019], [0029]-[0030], [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Suzuki and Holloway in order to control clock wind-back recovery to allow or disallow usage of licensed applications (Holloway, ¶ [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program including instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an authentication system that performs authentication and provides permission for use with limitation of a use permission period for a function of a device, cause the authentication system to perform operations comprising:
determining whether the permission for use of the function has been provided (¶ [0038]-[0040]; i.e. detecting that the smartphone application has been activated); and
controlling time set on the device in a state where the permission for use of the function has been provided (¶ [0042]-[0047], [0051]; i.e. authentication or use of the smartphone application is allowed when the user rewinds the clock to a time that is not before the first or previous activation time).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein, in a case where a request for rewinding the time set on the device by a first time period which is longer than a predetermined time period is made, the time set on the device is not rewound according to the request, and wherein, in a case where a request for rewinding the time set on the device by a second time period which is not longer than the predetermined time period is made, the time set on the device is rewound according to the request; wherein the predetermined time period is determined according to a software that is subjected to license management for the authentication system.
However, Davies discloses wherein, in a case where a request for rewinding the time set on the device by a first time period which is longer than a predetermined time period is made, the time set on the device is not rewound according to the request, and wherein, in a case where a request for rewinding the time set on the device by a second time period which is not longer than the predetermined time period is made, the time set on the device is rewound according to the request; wherein the predetermined time period is determined according to a software that is subjected to license management for the authentication system (FIG. 2-5D, ¶ [0017]-0019], [0029]-[0030], [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Suzuki and Holloway in order to control clock wind-back recovery to allow or disallow usage of licensed applications (Holloway, ¶ [0002]-[0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI D NGUY whose telephone number is (571)270-7311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/C.D.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435