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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application JP2021-212404 , filed on December 27, 2021. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 1 -6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 20180062861 A1, Brockhaus, et al. (hereinafter Brockhaus), in view of U.S . Patent 9172699, Vazquez, et al. (hereinafter Vazquez) . Regarding Claim 1 , Brockhaus teaches a method for installing electronic certificates, comprising: issuing, by a server of a certificate authority, the electronic certificates for authenticating a single terminal in chronological order ( Brockhaus; [0012]; “ receiving a further certificate request from the device by means of the established connection … wherein the coupling unit is designed to break the connection after the certificate is transmitted and the further certificate request is received. ” is analogous to the disclosed “chronological order” ) and using prescribed software which runs on the single terminal to: confirm whether an immediately preceding electronic certificate issued by the server exists on the single terminal ( Brockhaus; [0019 ]; performed in response to a new session ) ; and install a next electronic certificate issued by the server on the single terminal if the immediately preceding electronic certificate exists on the single terminal ( Brockhaus; [0019] ) . Brockhaus does not explicitly disclose that there is a plurality of users which use the single terminal at different time points. Vazquez teaches the electronic certificates for authenticating a single terminal for each of a plurality of users in a case where the plurality of users uses the single terminal at different time points ( Vazquez; Column 9, Lines 40 -50 ; Column 19, Lines 10-24 ) , and when one user of the plurality of users uses the single termina l ( Vazquez; Column 9, Lines 40-50; and in response, the application retrieves the relevant certificate ) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Brockhaus to incorporate the teachings of Vazquez to authenticate multiple users sharing one terminal. Although Brockhaus does not explicitly disclose issuing electronic certificates for a plurality of users whom share a single terminal, Brockhaus does teach issuing multiple , chronological, electronic certificates for a single terminal ( Brockhaus; [0019] ). It would have been reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Brockhaus to yield the predictable results of additionally providing device-to-user authentication ( Brockhaus; [0027] ) in the case where multiple users sharing one device disclosed by Vazquez ( Vazquez; Column 19; Lines 10-24) . Regarding Claim 2, Brockhaus (in view of Vazquez) teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1. Brockhaus further teaches: sending information on the immediately preceding electronic certificate ( Brockhaus; [0029] ; in response to the certificate being checked by the certificate authority ) , from the single terminal to the server via a network if the immediately preceding electronic certificate exists on the single terminal ( Brockhaus; [0019]; The examiner notes that the disclosed reference does not explicitly state in response to preceding electronic certificate existing on the single terminal. However, the reference states the new certificate is transmitted based on the previous certificate request. I t is inherent that the previous certificate exist s on the terminal if the previous certificate request was successful ) and sending the next electronic certificate from the server to the single terminal via the network ( Brockhaus; [0019] ; performed in response to a new session ) if the authentication for the single terminal is successful by the server based on the information on the immediately preceding electronic certificate which are received from the single terminal ( Brockhaus; [0029] ; and in response, transmits a certificate ) . Vazquez further teaches: issuing, by the server, user certificates for personal authentication for each of the plurality of users ( Vazquez; Column 9, Lines 40-50) ; sending information on a user certificate of the one user ( Vazquez; Column 1, Lines 55-67 ; The examiner notes that the disclosed reference does not explicitly state that the user information is sent from the single terminal to the server. However, it is inherent that for the in order to authenticate the request to perform an action associated with the user account, the server must have received to the user information from the client device. ) from the single terminal to the server via a network ( in response to transmitting a certificate) ; and if the personal authentication for the one user is successful by the server based on the information on the user certificate ( Vazquez; Column 4, Lines 48-62; in response, transmits a message to the terminal indicating the authentication was successful ). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Brockhaus to incorporate the teachings of Vazquez to additionally include elements for authenticating single users of a plurality. Although Brockhaus does not explicitly disclose sending information and authenticating personal information of users, Brockhaus does disclose that the reference can be modified for purposes of providing device-to-user-authentication ( Brockhaus; [0027]) . It would have been reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Brockhaus to yield the predictable results of additionally providing device-to-user-authentication due to both references performing the same function as it does separately. Regarding Claim 3, Brockhaus (in view of Vazquez) teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1. Brockhaus further teaches: wherein each of the electronic certificates issued by the server has an expiration period ( Brockhaus ; [0012] ) . Regarding Claim 4, Brockhaus (in view of Vazquez) teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1. Brockhaus further teaches: after installing the next electronic certificate on the single terminal, sending terminal information of the single terminal, from the single terminal to the server via the network ( Brockhaus; [0039]; “Certificate Confirmation Content” ); and registering, by the server, the terminal information received from the single terminal ( Brockhaus; [0039] ) . Brockhaus does not explicitly disclose that the information sent from the terminal to the server includes individual identification information and setup information of the single terminal. Vazquez teaches sending terminal information including individual identification information ( Vazquez; Column 7, Lines 39-58) and setup information of the single terminal ( Vazquez; Column 7, Lines 59 - Column 8, Line 3; “the server also may associate the certificate with the user’s account and the particular client device”) . It would have prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Brockhaus to incorporate the teachings of Vazquez to specifically transmit individual identification information and setup information of the single terminal from the single terminal to the server. Although Brockhaus does not explicitly disclose the terminal information (“Certificate Confirmation Content”) includes identification and setup information, Brockhaus does however, disclose that the terminal information sent to the server (“Certificate Confirmation Content”) is a policy-dependent notification ( Brockhaus; [0039]) . It would have yielded predictable results to have substituted the certificate confirmation content referenced in Brockhaus to include the individual identification and setup information referenced in Vazquez. Regarding Claim 5, Brockhaus (in view of Vazquez) teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1. Vazquez further teaches: identifying, by the server, each of the plurality of users who use the single terminal ( Vazquez; Column 19; Lines 10-24) by multi-factor authentication ( Vazquez ; Column 4, Lines 3-63; Fig. 1-4, disclosed password sign-in and bio-metric verification is analogous to claimed multi-factor authentication ) . Regarding Claim 6 , Brockhaus teaches a system for installing electronic certificates, comprising: a single terminal ( Brockhaus; [0012]; “a computer apparatus” ) ; and a server of a certificate authority, the server being configured to be connected to the single terminal via a network ( Brockhaus; [0012]) and configured to issue the electronic certificates for authenticating the single terminal in chronological order ( Brockhaus; [0012]; “ receiving a further certificate request from the device by means of the established connection … wherein the coupling unit is designed to break the connection after the certificate is transmitted and the further certificate request is received. ” is analogous to the disclosed “chronological order” ) the single terminal is configured to, by prescribed software: confirm whether an immediately preceding electronic certificate issued by the server exists on the single terminal ( Brockhaus; [0019]; performed in response to a new session ) ; and install a next electronic certificate issued by the server on the single terminal if the immediately preceding electronic certificate exists on the single terminal ( Brockhaus; [0019] ) . Brockhaus does not explicitly disclose that there is a plurality of users which use the single terminal at different time points. Vazquez teaches the electronic certificates for authenticating a single terminal for each of a plurality of users in a case where the plurality of users uses the single terminal at different time points ( Vazquez; Column 9, Lines 40-50; Column 19, Lines 10-24 ), and when one user of the plurality of users uses the single termina l ( Vazquez; Column 9, Lines 40-50; and in response, the application retrieves the relevant certificate ) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Brockhaus to incorporate the teachings of Vazquez to authenticate multiple users sharing one terminal. Although Brockhaus does not explicitly disclose issuing electronic certificates for a plurality of users whom share a single terminal, Brockhaus does teach issuing multiple, chronological, electronic certificates for a single terminal ( Brockhaus; [0019] ). It would have been reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Brockhaus to yield the predictable results of additionally providing device-to-user authentication ( Brockhaus; [0027] ) in the case where multiple users sharing one device disclosed by Vazquez ( Vazquez; Column 19; Lines 10-24) . Examiner’s Note The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & associates, Inc. V. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed..." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTOPHER LAM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8912 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30-5PM . 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 a t 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.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 2435 /J. BRANT MURPHY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435