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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 11/17/2023. In the application,
Claims 1-6 are pending and being considered.
Claims 1 and 4 are independent.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2023 is filed on or after the mailing date of the application no.18/561,957 filed on 11/17/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and an initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed on 11/17/2023 is attached to the instant office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains embedded hyperlinks “https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749” and “https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6750” in paragraph [0006] of the disclosure. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlinks; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http://. See MPEP § 608.01.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
Drawings (Figures 1-8), filed on 11/17/2023, has been reviewed and accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguri et al. (US 20230208650 A1; hereinafter “Oguri”) in view of Dmitrienko et al. (US 20140365781 A1; hereinafter “Dmitri”) and further in view of IWAYAMA HIDEO (JP 2010186342 A; hereinafter “Iwayama”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Oguri teaches A registration application support system comprising (Oguri in Fig. 3 and para. [0060 & 0073], discloses a system 300 that includes an information processing device 200 (hereinafter, an existence guarantee device), a creator device 301 (hereinafter, a registration application device), and a device 302 (hereinafter, authorization server) which is used by the verifier.):
a registration application device that is included in a first organization [[and applies for pre-registration for delegation of a right regarding access to a resource to an authorization server]] (Oguri in Fig. 3 and para. [0060], discloses that the system 300 includes a creator device 301 (hereinafter, a registration application device), and as disclosed in para. [0037], the organization to which the creator belongs, and as disclosed in para. [0075], the system 300 is used, for example, when a transaction between organizations is executed. Further, the system 300 is used, for example, when a transaction is executed with another organization based on data.); and
an existence guarantee device that is included in a second organization and guarantees existence of the first organization (Oguri in Fig. 3 and para. [0060 & 0075], discloses that the system 300 includes an information processing device 200 (an existence guarantee device). The system 300 is used, for example, when a transaction between organizations is executed. Further, the system 300 is used, for example, when a transaction is executed with another organization based on data, and as disclosed in para. [0057], the information processing device 200 can ensure, for example, the evaluation of an individual, the evaluation of an organization, the actual existence of the organization, or the like), wherein:
the existence guarantee device includes a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to (Oguri in Fig. 4 and para. [0084-0085], discloses a hardware configuration of the information processing device 200 (an existence guarantee device). In FIG. 4, the information processing device 200 has a central processing unit (CPU) 401 coupled to a memory 402 via bus 400. Here, the CPU 401 governs overall control of the information processing device 200): give an electronic signature to information that guarantees the existence of the first organization, in response to a request from a terminal used by a member of the first organization (Oguri in para. [0063], discloses that the information processing device 200 receives the data from a device different from the information processing device 200. A device different from the information processing device 200 is, for example, the creator device 301. The information processing device 200 attaches an electronic signature to, for example, the received data, and as disclosed in para. [0057], the information processing device 200 can ensure, for example, the evaluation of an individual, the evaluation of an organization, the actual existence of the organization, or the like. And/or see also para. [0075], In an organization, when a transaction is executed with another organization based on data, a signature is attached to each piece of multiple pieces of data created by respectively different employees within that another organization. And/Or see also Fig. 19 and para. [0182-0185], the creator registers pieces of data (f1 to fn) into “X”. The “X” corresponds to a creator (and organization to which the creator belongs, as disclosed in para. [0037]). A Plug-in function 1902 of X (creator, hereinafter member) transmits the ID and the hash value of each of the pieces of data f1 to fn (information) to T. “T” indicates a trust service and corresponds to the information processing device 200. A Generate function 1912 of T generates a Pkey(fi) and a Skey(fi) that are used when a signature to be attached to the pieces of data “fi” is generated […]. The Publish e-Sign function 1913 of T generates a signature Si to be attached to a piece of data “fi” using the Skey(fi), and transmits the final signature to X (creator). Where, the Plug-in function of X attaches the final signature to the pieces of data “f1 to fn” (herein in this example, “X” that corresponds to the creator (herein, member of an organization) transmits pieces of data (information) to “T” that corresponds to the processing device 200. In response to the transmitted pieces of data from the X (creator), T generates and provides a signature to be attached to the pieces of data));
the registration application device includes a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to (Oguri in para. [0124], an example of the hardware configuration of the creator device 301 (a registration application device) included in the system 300 depicted in FIG. 3 is similar to, for example, the example of the hardware configuration of the information processing device 200 (an existence guarantee device) depicted in FIG. 4, and therefore will not again be described.): transmit [[a display name of the first organization and]] the information to which the electronic signature has been given to the authorization server (Oguri in Fig. 20 and para. [0191], discloses that the “X” creator provides the pieces of data f1 to fn (informatiopn) having the signature S attached thereto, to the “Y” verifier, and as disclosed in para. [0073], the device 302 (e.g., authorization server) is a computer that is used by the verifier); and
the authorization server includes a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to (Oguri in para. [0125], an example of the hardware configuration of the device 302 (authorization server) included in the system 300 depicted in FIG. 3 is similar to, for example, the example of the hardware configuration of the information processing device 200 (an existence guarantee device) depicted in FIG. 4, and therefore will not again be described.): cause the existence guarantee device to verify the electronic signature (Oguri in Fig. 20 and para. [0191 and 0193], discloses that the “X” creator provides the pieces of data f1 to fn having the signature S attached thereto, to the “Y” verifier (e.g., the device 302, herein, corresponds to the authorization server). Y verifier then transmits the hash value of the piece of data fi and the attached signature S to T (e.g., processing device 200, herein corresponds to the existence guarantee device). A Check e-Sign function 2014 of T obtains an authentication key PK that corresponds to the signature S, verifies the validity of the signature S, and transmits the verification results Result (f1, . . . , fn) to Y verifier), and
However, Oguri fails to explicitly disclose but Dmitri teaches a registration application device applies for pre-registration for delegation of a right regarding access to a resource to an authorization server (Dmitri in Figs. 4-5 and para. [0076-0078 & 0090], Fig. 4 illustrates step (1) Registration. In particular Fig. 5, describes the process for registering a device 120 (hereinafter, registration application device) of a user U with an issuer 100. After registering the device 120 of the user U with the issuer 100, the registered user U 110 of the device 120 then delegates its access rights, to access resource R 130, to a device 150, which then becomes a delegated device 150 to access the resource R 130);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘Oguri’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Dmitri, such modification provides a secure architecture for delegating resource access rights to other devices. The secure architecture would prevent an adversary from being able to authenticate in the name of a user to access resources and further provides protection and/or countermeasures against denial-of-service and dictionary attacks; Dmitri in para. [0055/0077/0081].
However, Oguri as modified by Dmitri fails to explicitly disclose but Iwayama teaches the registration application device … configured to: transmit a display name of the first organization to the authorization server (Iwayama in pdf page 3 (last four paragraphs), discloses the process of transmitting the name information, such as a company name and/or a product name, from the supplier terminal 2 (e.g., the registration application device) to the inspection organization terminal 4 (e.g., the authorization server).); and
the authorization server … configured to: determine whether or not the first organization has a right to use the display name (Iwayama in pdf page 3 (last four paragraphs), discloses the process of transmitting the name information, such as a company name and/or a product name, from the supplier terminal 2 (hereinafter, the registration application device) to the inspection organization terminal 4 (hereinafter, the authorization server). In the inspection organization, the trademark right in a predetermined country is investigated automatically or manually according to the information received by the inspection organization terminal (4). The inspection organization investigates the trademark rights issue where the name information is used in the selected country, and considers whether the supplier has acquired the trademark right in the selected country and whether there is a risk of infringing the rights of other companies, and creates inspection results. The created inspection result preferably includes at least information on whether the trademark right can be used or not for the name information received by the inspection organization terminal (4)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Oguri as modified by Dmitri’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Iwayama, such modification would provide a technique for efficiently inspecting a trademark right for a name (such as, company/enterprise name) displayed by a web server; Iwayama in pdf page 1.
Regrading claim 2, Oguri as modified by Dmitri in view of Iwayama teaches the registration application support system according to claim 1, wherein Oguri further teaches the processor of the existence guarantee device gives the electronic signature to the information in a case where the member is authenticated (Oguri in Fig. 19 and para. [0182-0185 & 0189], discloses that prior to generating and transmitting a signature Si to be attached to a piece of data fi (e.g., information), the creator accesses/logs into an Auth function 1901 of X (creator device 301). The Auth function 1901 transmits Federation and SSO (Single Sign-On) to an Auth function 1911 of T and signs in T. The T corresponds to the information processing device 200 (e.g., the existence guarantee device), and as disclosed in in Fig. 4 and para. [0085], the information processing device 200 has a central processing unit (CPU) 401 coupled to a memory 402 via bus 400. Here, the CPU 401 governs overall control of the information processing device 200).
Regarding claim 3, Oguri as modified by Dmitri in view of Iwayama teaches the registration application support system according to claim 1, wherein Oguri as modified by Dmitri fails to explicitly disclose but Iwayama further teaches the processor of the authorization server determines whether or not the first organization has a trademark right regarding the display name (Iwayama in pdf page 3 (last four paragraphs) and pdf page 4 (first four paragraphs), discloses the process of transmitting the name information, such as a company name and/or a product name, from the supplier terminal (2) to the inspection organization terminal (4). In the inspection organization, the trademark right in a predetermined country is investigated automatically or manually according to the information received by the inspection organization terminal (4). The inspection organization investigates the trademark rights issue where the name information is used in the selected country, and considers whether the supplier has acquired the trademark right in the selected country and whether there is a risk of infringing the rights of other companies. Create inspection results. The created inspection result preferably includes at least information on whether the trademark right can be used or not for the received name information).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of ‘Oguri as modified by Dmitri’ by incorporating the above features, as taught by Iwayama, such modification would provide a technique for efficiently inspecting a trademark right for a name (such as, company/enterprise name) displayed by a web server; Iwayama in pdf page 1.
Regarding claims 4-6, the claims are drawn to a method and have limitations similar to claims 1-3 of the system, respectively. Therefore, claims 4-6 are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above for claims 1-3 of the system, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI CHEEMA, whose contact number is 571-272-1239 and email: ali.cheema@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:00AM – 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALI H. CHEEMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497