DETAILED ACTION
I Claims 1-14 have been examined.
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 .
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.
Priority
The current application is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2023/009515, International Filing Date: 03/13/2023 which claims foreign priority to 2022-055003, filed 03/30/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is two paragraphs instead of a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “storage unit” and “communication unit” in claims 1, 13, and 14; “acquisition unit” and “management unit” in claim 6; and “communication unit” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to “A program for causing a computer to function as”; however, the “program” is not embodied on a non-transitory medium nor on the “computer”.
A claim that recites no more than software, logic or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160099969 A1 to Angus et al., hereinafter Angus and further in view of United States Patent No. US 11256792 B2 to Tussy et al., hereinafter Tussy
Regarding claim 1, Angus discloses an information processing device comprising:
a communication unit that transmits, to an external device that provides a service by using the secure element of the terminal device, the unique identification information inquired from the external device or the security authentication information for the unique identification information on the secure element used for the service (paragraph 13, “compliance authenticator, in various embodiments, verifies that the configuration information complies with a policy”, paragraphs 27 and 40, “a unique identifier”, paragraph 42, “respective identities of users, organizations, entities, or the like”, and paragraph 59, “a list of authorized service set identifiers”).
Angus discloses the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Angus is not relied upon to disclose the claim limitations pertaining to “a storage unit that stores unique identification information for identifying an individual of a secure element mounted on a terminal device and security authentication information assigned to the secure element in association with each other”. Tussy discloses said claim limitations, as cited below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tussy with the teachings of Angus so that "this would allow the user to secure access to the mobile device 112 itself. Or enrollment info may be stored on server. Accordingly, in step 950, if the authentication server 120 or mobile device 112 determines that the enrollment information sufficiently corresponds with the credentials received, then the server or mobile device may verify that the identification of the user attempting login corresponds the account holder. This avoids the cumbersome process of the user having to manually type in a complex password using the small screen of the mobile device" (Tussy – column 18, lines 34-44).
Further regarding claim 1, Tussy discloses a storage unit that stores unique identification information for identifying an individual of a secure element mounted on a terminal device and security authentication information assigned to the secure element in association with each other (Figure 20, column 50, lines 66 and 67, column 51, lines 1-12, “Each of the components 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, are interconnected using various busses, and may be mounted on a common motherboard or in other manners as appropriate”, and column 52, lines 4-13, “several of the components may be mounted on a common motherboard” and lines 53-59, “Thus, for example, expansion memory 2074 may be provide as a security module for device 2050, and may be programmed with instructions that permit secure use of device 2050. In addition, secure applications may be provided via the SIMM cards, along with additional information, such as placing identifying information on the SIMM card in a non-hackable manner.”).
Regarding claim 2, Angus discloses wherein the security authentication information includes information on an expiration date of security authentication (paragraph 5, “authentication certificate, in a further embodiment, expires after a predetermined period of time”, paragraph 10, “the authentication certificate expiring after a predetermined period of time”, paragraph 26, “expiration date”, paragraph 41, “the authentication certificate is valid until an expiration date specified in the authentication certificate”, and paragraphs 48 and 73).
Regarding claim 3, Angus discloses wherein the security authentication information is security authentication information for security functions of hardware and an OS of the secure element (paragraphs 35-37).
Regarding claim 4, Angus discloses wherein the storage unit updates the security authentication information with update of the OS (paragraphs 45, 60, and 64).
Regarding claim 5, Angus discloses wherein the communication unit transmits the unique identification information and the security authentication information on the secure element used for the service to the external device in a case where a number of days from a current date to a date on which an expiration date of the security authentication expires is less than a specified number of days (paragraphs 41, 48, 50, 73, and 77, “authentication certificate is a temporary certificate that expires after a predetermined period of time, such as a couple of hours, a couple of days, a couple of weeks, etc.”).
Regarding claim 6, Angus discloses an information processing device comprising: a management unit that sets a validity period of a service provided by using the secure element of the terminal device on a basis of the security authentication information (paragraphs 41, 48, 50, 51 and 73, “only valid for a short time period”).
Angus discloses the claimed invention within claim 6, as cited above. However, Angus is not relied upon to disclose the claim limitations pertaining to “an acquisition unit that acquires security authentication information assigned to a secure element mounted on a terminal device”. Tussy discloses said claim limitations, as cited below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tussy with the teachings of Angus so that "this would allow the user to secure access to the mobile device 112 itself. Or enrollment info may be stored on server. Accordingly, in step 950, if the authentication server 120 or mobile device 112 determines that the enrollment information sufficiently corresponds with the credentials received, then the server or mobile device may verify that the identification of the user attempting login corresponds the account holder. This avoids the cumbersome process of the user having to manually type in a complex password using the small screen of the mobile device" (Tussy – column 18, lines 34-44).
Further regarding claim 6, Tussy discloses an acquisition unit that acquires security authentication information assigned to a secure element mounted on a terminal device (Figure 20, column 50, lines 66 and 67, column 51, lines 1-12, “Each of the components 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, are interconnected using various busses, and may be mounted on a common motherboard or in other manners as appropriate”, and column 52, lines 4-13, “several of the components may be mounted on a common motherboard” and lines 53-59, “Thus, for example, expansion memory 2074 may be provide as a security module for device 2050, and may be programmed with instructions that permit secure use of device 2050. In addition, secure applications may be provided via the SIMM cards, along with additional information, such as placing identifying information on the SIMM card in a non-hackable manner.”).
Regarding claim 7, Angus discloses wherein the security authentication information includes information on an expiration date of security authentication (paragraph 5, “authentication certificate, in a further embodiment, expires after a predetermined period of time”, paragraph 10, “the authentication certificate expiring after a predetermined period of time”, paragraph 26, “expiration date”, paragraph 41, “the authentication certificate is valid until an expiration date specified in the authentication certificate”, and paragraphs 48 and 73).
Regarding claim 8, Angus discloses wherein the security authentication information is security authentication information for security functions of hardware and an OS of the secure element (paragraphs 35-37).
Regarding claim 9, Angus discloses wherein the management unit changes the validity period of the service with update of an expiration date of the security authentication by update of the OS (paragraphs 41, 48, 50, 51 60, 64, and 73).
Regarding claim 10, Angus discloses wherein the acquisition unit acquires, from an external device, unique identification information for identifying an individual of the secure element used in the service and the security authentication information in a case where a number of days from a current date to a date on which an expiration date of the security authentication expires is less than a specified number of days.
Regarding claim 11, Angus discloses wherein the management unit invalidates the service provided to the terminal device in the case where the number of days from the current date to the date on which the expiration date of the security authentication expires is less than the specified number of days (paragraphs 41, 48, 50, 73, and 77, “authentication certificate is a temporary certificate that expires after a predetermined period of time, such as a couple of hours, a couple of days, a couple of weeks, etc.”).
Regarding claim 13, Angus discloses an information processing method, wherein in a storage unit and a communication unit, and the communication unit transmits, to an external device that provides a service by using the secure element of the terminal device, the unique identification information inquired from the external device or the security authentication information for the unique identification information on the secure element used for the service (paragraph 13, “compliance authenticator, in various embodiments, verifies that the configuration information complies with a policy”, paragraphs 27 and 40, “a unique identifier”, paragraph 42, “respective identities of users, organizations, entities, or the like”, and paragraph 59, “a list of authorized service set identifiers”).
Angus teaches the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Angus is not relied upon to teach the claim limitations pertaining to “the storage unit stores unique identification information for identifying an individual of a secure element mounted on a terminal device and security authentication information assigned to the secure element in association with each other,”. Tussy teaches said claim limitations, as cited below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tussy with the teachings of Angus so that "this would allow the user to secure access to the mobile device 112 itself. Or enrollment info may be stored on server. Accordingly, in step 950, if the authentication server 120 or mobile device 112 determines that the enrollment information sufficiently corresponds with the credentials received, then the server or mobile device may verify that the identification of the user attempting login corresponds the account holder. This avoids the cumbersome process of the user having to manually type in a complex password using the small screen of the mobile device" (Tussy – column 18, lines 34-44).
Further regarding claim 13, Tussy teaches the storage unit stores unique identification information for identifying an individual of a secure element mounted on a terminal device and security authentication information assigned to the secure element in association with each other (Figure 20, column 50, lines 66 and 67, column 51, lines 1-12, “Each of the components 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, are interconnected using various busses, and may be mounted on a common motherboard or in other manners as appropriate”, and column 52, lines 4-13, “several of the components may be mounted on a common motherboard” and lines 53-59, “Thus, for example, expansion memory 2074 may be provide as a security module for device 2050, and may be programmed with instructions that permit secure use of device 2050. In addition, secure applications may be provided via the SIMM cards, along with additional information, such as placing identifying information on the SIMM card in a non-hackable manner.”).
Regarding claim 14, Angus discloses a program for causing a computer to function as: a communication unit that transmits, to an external device that provides a service by using the secure element of the terminal device, the unique identification information inquired from the external device or the security authentication information for the unique identification information on the secure element used for the service (paragraph 13, “compliance authenticator, in various embodiments, verifies that the configuration information complies with a policy”, paragraphs 27 and 40, “a unique identifier”, paragraph 42, “respective identities of users, organizations, entities, or the like”, and paragraph 59, “a list of authorized service set identifiers”).
Angus discloses the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Angus is not relied upon to disclose the claim limitations pertaining to “a storage unit that stores unique identification information for identifying an individual of a secure element mounted on a terminal device and security authentication information assigned to the secure element in association with each other”. Tussy discloses said claim limitations, as cited below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tussy with the teachings of Angus so that "this would allow the user to secure access to the mobile device 112 itself. Or enrollment info may be stored on server. Accordingly, in step 950, if the authentication server 120 or mobile device 112 determines that the enrollment information sufficiently corresponds with the credentials received, then the server or mobile device may verify that the identification of the user attempting login corresponds the account holder. This avoids the cumbersome process of the user having to manually type in a complex password using the small screen of the mobile device" (Tussy – column 18, lines 34-44).
Further regarding claim 14, Tussy discloses a storage unit that stores unique identification information for identifying an individual of a secure element mounted on a terminal device and security authentication information assigned to the secure element in association with each other (Figure 20, column 50, lines 66 and 67, column 51, lines 1-12, “Each of the components 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, are interconnected using various busses, and may be mounted on a common motherboard or in other manners as appropriate”, and column 52, lines 4-13, “several of the components may be mounted on a common motherboard” and lines 53-59, “Thus, for example, expansion memory 2074 may be provide as a security module for device 2050, and may be programmed with instructions that permit secure use of device 2050. In addition, secure applications may be provided via the SIMM cards, along with additional information, such as placing identifying information on the SIMM card in a non-hackable manner.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. US 11256792 B2 to Tussy et al., hereinafter Tussy.
Regarding claim 12, Tussy discloses an information processing device comprising a communication unit that transmits, to an external device, unique identification information for identifying an individual of a secure element mounted inside (Figure 20, column 50, lines 66 and 67, column 51, lines 1-12, “Each of the components 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, are interconnected using various busses, and may be mounted on a common motherboard or in other manners as appropriate”, and column 52, lines 4-13, “several of the components may be mounted on a common motherboard” and lines 53-59, “Thus, for example, expansion memory 2074 may be provide as a security module for device 2050, and may be programmed with instructions that permit secure use of device 2050. In addition, secure applications may be provided via the SIMM cards, along with additional information, such as placing identifying information on the SIMM card in a non-hackable manner.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on form PTO-892 are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to authentication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH L AVERY whose telephone number is (571)272-8627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/JEREMIAH L AVERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431