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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakimori (US 2017/0318189) in view of Cao (US 11,714,891).
Regarding Claim 1, Asakimori teaches an information processing apparatus (Paragraph 1) configured to offer at least a print function (Paragraph 46, wherein there is a print function) through execution of authentication in log-in operation (Paragraph 49, wherein authentication can be performed), the information processing apparatus comprising:
one or more memories that store a set of instructions (Paragraph 56, wherein there is ROM storing programs); and
one or more processors that execute the instructions (Paragraph 56, wherein there is a CPU), the instructions, when executed, causing the information processing apparatus to perform operations comprising:
receiving an instruction for generating a pattern to be used in pattern authentication, the pattern authentication being one of ways of the authentication in the log-in operation (Paragraph 100, wherein the user can register a pattern password);
generating the pattern (Paragraphs 100 and 101, wherein the pattern is generated by user);
storing the generated pattern (Paragraph 103, wherein the pattern is stored).
Asakimori does not teach performing notification, wherein, in a case of a failure in the log-in operation, the generating of the pattern is redone, and, in the notification, information regarding a pattern generated again by redoing the generating is notified to a notification address corresponding to a user registered in the information processing apparatus.
Cao does teach performing notification, wherein, in a case of a failure in the log-in operation, the generating of the pattern is redone, and, in the notification, information regarding a pattern generated again by redoing the generating is notified to a notification address corresponding to a user registered in the information processing apparatus (Column 5, lines 46-62, wherein the pattern password can be reset through the use of the email address).
Asakimori and Cao are combinable because they both deal with pattern authentication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Asakimori with the teachings of Cao for the purpose of regaining access to the computing service (Cao: Column 5, lines 46-62).
Regarding Claim 2, Cao further teaches wherein in the notification, the information regarding the pattern generated again is notified by electronic mail (Column 5, lines 46-62, wherein the pattern password can be reset through the use of the email address).
Asakimori and Cao are combinable because they both deal with pattern authentication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Asakimori with the teachings of Cao for the purpose of regaining access to the computing service (Cao: Column 5, lines 46-62).
Regarding Claim 3, Asakimori further teaches wherein in the generating, a pattern that meets pattern generation conditions set on a setting screen of user authentication settings of the information processing apparatus is generated (Paragraph 132, wherein maximum and minimum requirements can be set).
Regarding Claim 4, Asakimori further teaches wherein the pattern generation conditions set on the setting screen include at least one of a number of dots in the pattern, a number of turns, and an angle of turning (Paragraph 132, wherein maximum and minimum requirements can be set).
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakimori (US 2017/0318189) in view of Cao (US 11,714,891) further in view of Kowaka (US 2016/0004854).
Regarding Claim 5, Asakimori in view of Cao does not teach wherein the operations further comprise using a static next-point candidate list that shows points to which a move is possible from each point.
Kowaka does teach wherein the operations further comprise using a static next-point candidate list that shows points to which a move is possible from each point (Paragraphs 49, 54-60, wherein the password can be generated based on the moves that are possible and how the password should be generated. This would correspond to a next-point candidate list).
Asakimori and Kowaka are combinable because they both deal with pattern authentication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Asakimori in view of Cao with the teachings of Kowaka for the purpose of preventing password leakage (Kowaka: Paragraph 9).
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited references of B-E, G, and I-K all relate to establishing authentication through the use of patterns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights