DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is response to communication: response to amendments/arguments filed on 02/04/2026
Claims 1-12 are currently pending in this application.
No new IDS has been filed for this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See amended rejection below.
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) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. JP2003330565 (Nakajima), in view of Goldfarb et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0346830 (Goldfarb), and further in view of Smith II et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0195457 (Smith)
As per claim 1, Nakajima teaches a web application server comprising: a communication circuit; and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to assign, in response to a request from a client, authentication information to a web application program (paragraph 8 with mobile terminal registering in advance with server; see also paragraph 28-29, with registration includes username and password); control the communication circuit to transmit the web application program to which the authentication information is assigned to the client, and control the communication circuit to receive a verification request of the authentication information from the client in accordance with a request from the web application program at a time of activating the web application program, and returns a result of the verification of the authentication information to the client (see paragraph 30-33 with server sending program to user; see paragraph 34 when at a time of using/activating the program, the user sends authentication request to server; see paragraph 35 with server performing; result is sent from server to user).
Although Nakajima teaches authentication information, Nakajima does not explicitly teach that the authentication information is described in a low-level language. However, utilizing low level language is well known in the art. For example, see Goldfarb (see paragraph 39 with utilizing webassembly to manage cookies in web-based applications; see also paragraph 80).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nakajima with Goldfarb. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide more security and credential management (paragraph 2 of Goldfarb).
Although the Nakajima combination teaches wherein authentication information may expire (see Goldfarb paragraph 77 wherein authentication information includes a value when they expire), the combination does not explicitly teach that the time is limited toward an application activation. However, utilizing authentication information wherein the information comprises a predetermined time up to which a resource is permitted to activate would have been obvious. For example, see Smith (abstract, paragraph 48, and throughout wherein activation of client resources are granted if the activation token is not expired)
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Smith with the Nakajima combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to find an easier way to control the authorization of client resources to use online services (paragraph 2 of Smith).
As per claim 2, it would have been obvious over the Nakajima combination wherein the proessor invalidates the authentication information after a lapse of a predetermined time from generation of the authentication information (Goldfarb paragraph 100 with authentication token may expire after a predetermined time).
As per claim 3, it would have been obvious over the Nakajima combination wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the authentication information every time there is a request from the client (see Smith paragraph 26 with generating activation code; code is stored in database; see paragraph 19 wherein after activation, the authentication code is no longer valid; see also paragraph 40, generating activation code with a process intiated by client; see also paragraph 45)
As per claim 4, the Nakajima combination teaches wherein the low-level language includes an assembly language (Goldfarb paragraphs 39 and 107 with webassembly).
As per claim 5, the Nakajima combination teaches wherein the assembly language includes an assembly language of WebAssembly (Goldfarb paragraphs 39 and 107).
As per claim 6, Nakajim teaches a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a web application program for causing a computer or a client to execute the steps of: transmitting, to a server, a verification request for validity of authentication information described in a program code (paragraphs 34-35 with user and application requesting access with authentication information); and continuing a process described in the program code in a case where the authentication information is valid as a result of a verification from the server, and stopping an execution of the process of the program code in a case where the authentication information is not valid (paragraphs 34-36 with the program allowed to continue when authentication information is valid and program cannot continue when it is not valid).
Although Nakajima teaches authentication information, Nakajima does not explicitly teach that the authentication information is described in a low-level language. However, utilizing low level language is well known in the art. For example, see Goldfarb (see paragraph 39 with utilizing webassembly to manage cookies in web-based applications; see also paragraph 80).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nakajima with Goldfarb. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide more security and credential management (paragraph 2 of Goldfarb).
Claim 8 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 9 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 2 above.
Claim 10 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 3 above.
Claim 11 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 4 above.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAI YIN GEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6431. The examiner can normally be reached on Monda-Friday 8:30-5:00 PST Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739. 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).
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights