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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
CLAIM REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103
A. Independent Claims 1, 6, and 11 Are Not Rendered Obvious by Walker in View of Suzuki
(1) The cited combination fails to teach or suggest automatically determining whether a corresponding vital-document category lacks an uploaded document and, based on that determination, generating a prompt
Applicant argues that neither Walker nor Suzuki, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the amended automatic "category lacks an uploaded document" determination and resulting prompt generation as now recited in independent Claims 1 and 11.
(Remarks, page 2 and page 3, ¶ 1)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/8/2026, directed at the amended claims submitted on 5/8/2026 were considered, but are moot in view of new rejections made below in response to the latest amendments by applicant.
(2) The cited combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link being generated for the user account and associated with the stored vital document in encrypted cloud storage
Applicant argues the following:
The Office Action relies on Suzuki for forming a one-time URL and password having expiration and limited access count. Applicant does not dispute that Suzuki discloses generating a URL and associated password for accessing a stored document within Suzuki's confidential file exchange storage mechanism. However, amended Claims 1 and 11 expressly require that the one- time, password-encrypted, time-limited link is "generated for the user account and associated with the stored vital document in encrypted cloud storage." The Office Action does not identify, and the cited combination does not disclose, the required association of the generated transient link to the user account and to the stored vital document in encrypted cloud storage in the manner claimed.
(Remarks, page 3, ¶ 3)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Suzuki teaches sharing the at least one document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link. Suzuki further teaches the stored (see Machine Translation [0012], [0016] and Fig. 1: An electronic application support server 40 performs electronic application support processing in cooperation with one or more user terminals 10. The electronic application support server 40 is a cloud server based on cloud computing. And see Machine Translation [0055] and Fig. 4: “When the distribution button is clicked or the like by the user's operation of the input unit 12, the selection processing unit 34 C encrypts the selected document file as a document for distribution and uploads it to the confidential file exchange storage unit 71.” Because the confidential file exchange storage unit 71 is in the cloud server 40, the Examiner interprets the encrypted document uploaded to the confidential file exchange storage unit 71 as the stored … document in encrypted cloud storage). Suzuki also discloses sharing the at least one (see Machine Translation [0055] and Fig. 4: “When the distribution button is clicked or the like by the user's operation of the input unit 12, the selection processing unit 34 C encrypts the selected document file as a document for distribution and uploads it to the confidential file exchange storage unit 71.” And see Machine Translation [0058] and Fig. 4: “the address selecting means 34 D transmits the location information transmission command including the selected mail address and reception information to the document providing means 55. The location information transmission command includes a signal instructing transmission of an electronic mail including information related to the location of the document. Hereinafter, the information related to the location of the document is also referred to as location information.” And see Machine Translation [0084] and Fig. 4: “The location information creation means 55A creates location information in accordance with the location information transmission command transmitted from the address selection means 34D. In the present
embodiment, the location information creation means 55 A creates location information including access information which is information on a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) related to the location of the document and a password associated with the access information.” And see Machine Translation [0085]: “The access information may be, for example, a one-time URL that is information of a URL whose expiration date is set to 30 days and the number of accesses is limited to one.” And see Machine Translation [0086] and Fig. 4: “The mail transmission means 55B transmits an electronic mail including the location information created by the location information creation means 55A to the mail address selected by the address selection means 34D.” Because Suzuki teaches that the one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link points to the stored document in encrypted cloud storage, Suzuki discloses sharing the at least one … document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link … associated with the stored … document in encrypted cloud storage).
Additionally, Applicant argues the following:
Walker's system is directed to a user's electronic safety deposit box and describes encryption and storage, but Walker does not disclose Suzuki's one-time URL/password mechanism as being "generated for the user account" in the claimed sense and "associated with the stored vital document in encrypted cloud storage." Conversely, Suzuki does not disclose Walker's user-account-based vital-document vault, with encrypted cloud storage for stored "vital documents" in a user account context, and does not address (or suggest) generating the transient one-time link specifically "for the user account" of such a vault and associating the link with a stored vital document within encrypted cloud storage for that account. The Examiner's rationale that Suzuki's external sharing would be "highly desirable" for Walker's vault does not supply the missing teachings of (i) generation "for the user account" and (ii) association "with the stored vital document in encrypted cloud storage," as expressly required by amended Claims 1 and 11.
Stated differently, even if one were to combine Walker's vault with Suzuki's one-time link delivery, the Office Action does not articulate, with factual support, how the combination would implement the claimed linkage between the generated one-time link, the particular user account, and the particular stored vital document within encrypted cloud storage, as required by the amended claims. The rejection therefore fails the all-elements requirement. MPEP 2143.03.
(Remarks, page 3, ¶ 4 - page 4, ¶ 1)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As explained above, Suzuki discloses sharing the at least one … document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link … associated with the stored … document in encrypted cloud storage. Walker teaches user-account-based vital document vault. Both Walker and Suzuki teach sharing documents in document vaults. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the delegate-access mechanism of Walker with the mechanism of sharing the at least one document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link associated with the stored document in encrypted cloud storage taught by Suzuki and let the generated one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link be generated for a document in the user account of Walker. It would have been obvious because the substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of sharing vital documents conveniently and securely over the Internet. Because Walker discloses a computerized method for storing a vital document, Walker modified in view of Suzuki as described above would teach sharing the at least one vital document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link generated for the user account and associated with the stored vital document in encrypted cloud storage, as recited in claim 1.
(3) Independent Claim 6 additionally requires view-only mode without permitting modification of the stored vital document within the account, which the cited combination fails to teach or suggest
Applicant argues the following: independent Claim 6 is not rendered obvious by Walker in view of Suzuki.
(Remarks, page 4, ¶¶ 2-5)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
B. The Examiner Has Not Established an Adequate Rationale for Combining Walker and Suzuki to Arrive at the Amended Claims
Applicant argues the following:
The Office has not articulated a sufficiently specific reason why a POSITA would have modified Walker's secure, account-based vital-document vault to implement Suzuki's particular one-time URL/password/time-limited delivery mechanism. … But that response addresses only whether sharing could occur without deleting Walker's stored files. It does not explain why a POSITA would have selected Suzuki's specific external delivery architecture for use within Walker's very different vault environment.
Walker is directed to a persistent secure-vault platform centered on controlled access, account-based storage, internal permissions, and secure retrieval of user documents. Walker teaches, for example, the EV system may also allow the customer to designate third party delegates to access all or a portion of the contents with the ESDB on the customer's behalf. The delegates may only have specific permissions such as viewing or printing specific documents but have no ability to modify or delete such documents and further teaches that the user has the ability to share all documents stored in STORESECURE with their family, friends, coworkers, power of attorney and acquaintances who are users of the system. The product provides a fine level of control of who has access to which documents or collections. In contrast, Suzuki is directed to a government e- application support system that distributes public-institution documents using temporary access credentials. Suzuki's cited mechanism is not merely "sharing" in the abstract; it is a specific document-delivery workflow in which the location information creation means Suzuki creates location information including access information which is information on a URL related to the location of the document and a password associated with the access information. The access information may be, for example, a one-time URL that is information of a URL whose expiration date is set to 30 days and the number of accesses is limited to one. The password associated with the access information may be a one-time password that is valid only once.
(Remarks, page 4, last ¶- page 5,¶ 2)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Even though Walker and Suzuki have different application environments, one of ordinary skill in the art would still have recognized that the external sharing of documents taught by Suzuki is a solution to the problem of the instant claim. Both Walker and Suzuki teach sharing documents in document vaults. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the delegate-access mechanism of Walker with the mechanism of sharing the at least one document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link associated with the stored document in encrypted cloud storage taught by Suzuki and let the generated one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link be generated for a document in the user account of Walker. It would have been obvious because the substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of sharing vital documents conveniently and securely over the Internet.
Applicant argues the following:
The Office Action further states that the external sharing of Suzuki is still highly desirable for the vault of vital documents taught by Walker in order for the vital documents to be used externally. Applicant respectfully contends that rationale is too general. At most, it suggests that external use of documents may be beneficial. It does not explain why a POSITA would have expected Suzuki's public-institution document-delivery mechanism to be technically compatible with Walker's internal vault architecture, permissions model, and access-control framework, or why a POSITA would have chosen Suzuki's transient link/password approach over Walker's own established sharing and delegate-access mechanisms. The rejection therefore fails to provide the required articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning for the proposed combination.
(Remarks, page 5, last ¶- page 6,¶ 1)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Both Walker and Suzuki teach sharing documents in document vaults. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the delegate-access mechanism of Walker with the mechanism of sharing the at least one document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link associated with the stored document in encrypted cloud storage taught by Suzuki and let the generated one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link be generated for a document in the user account of Walker. It would have been obvious because the substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of sharing vital documents conveniently and securely over the Internet.
Applicant argues the following:
A POSITA starting from Walker would have understood Walker already to provide controlled sharing within its own ecosystem, including delegate permissions, user sharing, and file-level restrictions. The Office Action does not identify any deficiency in Walker that would have led a POSITA to replace or supplement those controls with Suzuki's recipient-specific one- time distribution scheme. Nor does it explain how Suzuki's workflow - developed for transmitting government-generated application documents to application subjects - would be integrated into Walker's persistent personal vault without significant redesign. The asserted motivation that external sharing is "desirable" is therefore not enough to support the specific Walker/Suzuki combination claimed here.
(Remarks, page 6,¶ 2)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. There is no requirement for the Office Action to identify any deficiency in Walker’s controlled sharing within its own ecosystem, including delegate permissions, user sharing, and file-level restrictions. As long as the result of substituting Walker’s delegate-access sharing with Suzuki’s recipient-specific one- time distribution scheme is predictable, a POSITA would find such a substitution obvious. In addition, because both Suzuki and Walker teach sharing documents in document vaults, integrating Walker with Suzuki by substituting the delegate-access mechanism of Walker with the mechanism of sharing the at least one document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link associated with the stored document in encrypted cloud storage taught by Suzuki requires no significant system redesign.
C. Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 Are Not Rendered Obvious by Walker in View of Suzuki and Further in View of Badger
Applicant argues the following:
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 further recite account-existence determination and proposing account creation when no account exists. In addition to the deficiencies discussed above regarding the Walker/Suzuki combination for the underlying vital-document workflow and sharing link limitations (as amended in Claims 1 and 11 and as further clarified in Claim 6), Badger fails to cure these deficiencies because Badger is directed to ticket management for entry into an event and allocation of tickets to users based on pre-registered identification documents. Badger's "record of the person" and login/record-creation flow is embedded within a different technical context and does not address, and does not suggest, integrating that record workflow with (i) automatic category-based determination that a user's vital-document category lacks an uploaded document and prompt generation based on that determination, or (ii) generation for the user account and association with the stored vital document in encrypted cloud storage of the one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link required by amended Claims 1 and 11.
(Remarks, page 6,¶ 3)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues the following:
The Office Action asserts that it would have been obvious to incorporate Badger's account management technique because it is "a solution to the problem of the instant claim." This rationale is conclusory and does not explain, with a rational underpinning grounded in the references, how or why a person of ordinary skill would combine Badger's ticketing-account workflow with Walker's vital-document vault and Suzuki's one-time link distribution in a way that yields the claimed invention as an ordered combination, particularly given the account-centric and encrypted-cloud-storage-associated sharing link limitations now expressly recited and the automated category-based absence determination now expressly recited. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
(Remarks, page 6,¶ 4 – page 7, ¶ 1)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Both Walker and Badger teach logging, by a user, into an online account. Regarding claims 3, 8 and 13, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the computerized method of Walker modified in view of Suzuki by adding the step of determining whether the account exists and wherein if the account exists, the processor processes the login further taught by Badger. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of making a user login more efficient by only attempting to log a user into an existing account. The account-centric and encrypted-cloud-storage-associated sharing link limitations now expressly recited and the automated category-based absence determination now expressly recited are not affected in any way or shape by the account-existence determination of Badger. Therefore, there is no need to address the account-centric and encrypted-cloud-storage-associated sharing link limitations and the automated category-based absence determination in the rejection of claims 3, 8 and 13. Also, Because Walker teaches logging into an account to provide access to the stored vital document workflow, when Walker modified in view Suzuki is further changed in view of Badger as described above, they would teach determining whether the account exists, and wherein if the account exists, the processor processes the login further to provide access to the stored vital document workflow of claim 1.
Similarly, Both Walker and Badger teach logging, by a user, into an online account. Regarding claims 4, 9 and 14, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the computerized method of Walker modified in view of Suzuki by letting the processor propose to the user to create a new account if the account does not exist, as taught by Badger. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of guiding the user in the creation of a user account. The account-centric and encrypted-cloud-storage-associated sharing link limitations now expressly recited and the automated category-based absence determination now expressly recited are not affected in any way or shape by the account-existence determination of Badger. Therefore, there is no need to address the account-centric and encrypted-cloud-storage-associated sharing link limitations and the automated category-based absence determination in the rejection of claims 4, 9 and 14. Also, Because Walker modified in view of Suzuki teaches encrypted storage and controlled sharing of the at least one vital document, when Walker modified in view Suzuki is further changed in view of Badger as described above, they would teach wherein, if the account does not exist, the one or more processors proposes to the user to create a new account for encrypted storage and controlled sharing of the at least one vital document.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The follow ing is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite “wherein the processor automatically determines whether a corresponding vital-document category in the account lacks an uploaded document and, based on that determination, generates a prompt”. This amendment is not supported by the originally filed specification and is therefore new matter. Due to their dependency on independent claims 1 or 11, dependent claims 2-5 and 12-15 also contain new matter.
Applicant states in the Remarks (page 1, ¶ 3) that support for these amendments is found, for example, in the application's disclosure of prompting for missing vital documents using checking logic and a structured set of "categories" and "modules" (including the checking module and document uploading module). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. All the disclosures regarding prompting for missing vital documents using checking logic in the specification are exemplified in [0029] and [0035] as reproduced below: “Checking module 110 may be configured to check, by the processor, if the account contains at least one vital document.” The only mentioning of "categories" in the specification is in [0025] reproduced below: “ ‘New data’ refers to a distinct category or field that is different from any category or field data that was previously captured. In certain embodiments, the categories or field data are detected based on machine-readable data.” Therefore, the specification separately discloses prompting for missing vital documents using checking logic and “categories” in locations far away from each other in the specification. Additionally, the specification does not make known any connection between the concepts of prompting for missing vital documents using checking logic and “categories”. Such separate disclosures of prompting for missing vital documents using checking logic in [0029], [0035] and “categories” in [0025] cannot support the recited claim limitation “wherein the processor automatically determines whether a corresponding vital-document category in the account lacks an uploaded document and, based on that determination, generates a prompt”.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite “sharing the at least one vital document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link generated for the user account and associated with the stored vital document in encrypted cloud storage”. This amendment is not supported by the originally filed specification and is therefore new matter. Due to their dependency on independent claims 1 or 11, dependent claims 2-5 and 12-15 also contain new matter.
Applicant states in the Remarks (page 1, ¶ 3) that support for this amendment is found, for example, in … “the disclosure of secure encrypted cloud storage and maintaining encryption throughout the method, and the disclosure of secure sharing via a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link and downloading via such link”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended Claims 1 and 11 expressly require that the one- time, password-encrypted, time-limited link is "generated for the user account and associated with the stored vital document in encrypted cloud storage." The specification does not disclose the required association of the generated transient link to the user account and to the stored vital document in encrypted cloud storage in the manner claimed.
Independent claim 6 recites “displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode in which the displayed vital document is presented without permitting modification of the stored vital document within the account” (emphasis added). This amendment is not supported by the originally filed specification and is therefore new matter. Due to their dependency on independent claim 6, dependent claims 7-10 also contain new matter.
Claims 3 and 8 recite “the processor processes the login further to provide access to the stored vital document workflow of claim 1” (emphasis added). This amendment is not supported by the originally filed specification and is therefore new matter.
Claims 9 and 14 recite “the one or more processors proposes to the user to create a new account for encrypted storage and controlled sharing of the at least one vital document” (emphasis added). This amendment is not supported by the originally filed specification and is therefore new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Patent No. 10,108,811), further in view of Pang (CN 106971341A), further in view of Suzuki (JP 6088102 B1), and further in view of Lane (US 2004/0216039).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Walker teaches A computerized method for storing a vital document (see Abstract: “Disclosed herein is a system for enabling secure data storage into a third party managed electronic vault that provides users with a secure location to store important documents, information, and data including but not limited to various forms of personal identifiable information.” And see col. 12, lines 63-66: “The Identification aggregate container will capture all important documents related to the user's identification. Default item categories are: Birth Certificate; Passport; SSN; Military ID; Driver's License”), the method comprising the steps of:
logging, by a user, into an account (see col. 7, lines 44-46: “If the SmartVault portal is accessed directly, the user will need to authenticate by entering their credentials into a logon page.”);
(see col. 14, lines 29-48: “Categories are a classification or grouping to manage related documents. Each category can contain many different documents. For example, in the Credit Card Category a user may have several VISAs, Mastercards and American Express credit cards. Examples of System Categories: … Birth Certificate, … SSN Card, … Driver's License...”)
displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document (see col. 17, lines 13-19: “When a review/renew task is created from STORESECURE, all of the associated item's attachments will be copied into the new task. The user can add one or more attachments to the task by using the bulk upload dialog launched by clicking the “Add Attachment” button. Clicking on an image's filename in the attachment table displays a large sized image in a light box widget.”); and
sharing the at least one vital document (see col. 23, lines 43-51: “This approach provides an excellent balance of security and convenience, and provides a number of features such as the ability to share documents with other family members”)
Walker fails to teach checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user, wherein the processor automatically determines whether a corresponding vital-document category in the account lacks an uploaded document and, based on that determination, generates a prompt; if the user had not uploaded the at least one vital document, prompting the user, by the processor, to upload the at least one vital document.
However, Pang discloses logging, by a user, into an account (see Machine Translation of the Description, page 17, [0060], lines 707 and 708: “With reference to FIG1 , the bidding and procurement account A logs in the terminal to request to publish the bidding information”);
checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one generates a prompt; if the user had not uploaded the at least one (see Machine Translation of the Description, page 18, [0063], lines 759 and 760: “If the uploaded bid document is empty and you do not agree to the release, you will be prompted to click the file upload button to upload the bid document before it can be released;” And see Machine Translation of the Claims, page 1, Claim 3: “Determine that the upload bids file is empty, do not agree with this release, suggesting that you need to click the file upload button to upload the bids file to be released”).
Both the vital-document category of Walker and the account of Pang are an online location storing uploaded documents. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the computerized method of Walker by adding the steps of checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one document previously uploaded by the user; wherein the processor automatically determines whether the location lacks an uploaded document and, based on that determination, generates a prompt; if the user had not uploaded the at least one document, prompting the user, by the processor, to upload the at least one document, which are taught by Pang. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of automatically reminding a user to upload at least one document in the online location. Because the online location taught by Walker is the vital-document category, Walker modified in view of Pang as described above would teach checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user, wherein the processor automatically determines whether a corresponding vital-document category in the account lacks an uploaded document and, based on that determination, generates a prompt; if the user had not uploaded the at least one vital document, prompting the user, by the processor, to upload the at least one vital document; as recited in claims 1 and 11.
Walker modified in view of Pang fails to teach that the at least one vital document is shared via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link generated for the user account and associated with the stored vital document in encrypted cloud storage.
In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki discloses sharing the at least one (see Machine Translation [0055] and Fig. 4: “When the distribution button is clicked or the like by the user's operation of the input unit 12, the selection processing unit 34 C encrypts the selected document file as a document for distribution and uploads it to the confidential file exchange storage unit 71.” And see Machine Translation [0058] and Fig. 4: “the address selecting means 34 D transmits the location information transmission command including the selected mail address and reception information to the document providing means 55. The location information transmission command includes a signal instructing transmission of an electronic mail including information related to the location of the document. Hereinafter, the information related to the location of the document is also referred to as location information.” And see Machine Translation [0084] and Fig. 4: “The location information creation means 55A creates location information in accordance with the location information transmission command transmitted from the address selection means 34D. In the present embodiment, the location information creation means 55 A creates location information including access information which is information on a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) related to the location of the document and a password associated with the access information.” And see Machine Translation [0085]: “The access information may be, for example, a one-time URL that is information of a URL whose expiration date is set to 30 days and the number of accesses is limited to one.” And see Machine Translation [0086] and Fig. 4: “The mail transmission means 55B transmits an electronic mail including the location information created by the location information creation means 55A to the mail address selected by the address selection means 34D.” Because Suzuki teaches that the one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link points to the stored document in encrypted cloud storage, Suzuki discloses sharing the at least one … document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link … associated with the stored … document in encrypted cloud storage).
Both Suzuki and Walker modified in view of Pang teach sharing documents in document vaults. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the delegate-access mechanism of Walker with the mechanism of sharing the at least one document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link associated with the stored document in encrypted cloud storage taught by Suzuki and let the generated one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link be generated for a document in the user account of Walker. It would have been obvious because the substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of sharing vital documents conveniently and securely over the Internet. Because Walker modified in view of Pang discloses a computerized method for storing a vital document, Walker modified in view of Pang and Suzuki as described above would teach sharing the at least one vital document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link generated for the user account and associated with the stored vital document in encrypted cloud storage, as recited in claim 1.
Walker modified in view of Pang and Suzuki fails to teach that the vital document is displayed in a view-only mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Lane discloses displaying, on a display of a computer, the vital document in a view-only mode (see [0151] and Fig. 5: “For example, the employment/right-to-work document system 68 may store an I-9 record with an appended digital image file of a birth certificate in the data base 22, and the collaboraitive work environment 66 may allow the identity verification system 70 to access the stored birth certificate digital image file in order to request the identity verification system 70 to either (1) confirm the authenticity of, or (2) deny verification of the authenticity of the birth certificate. In this birth certificate example, the identity verification system is permitted only to view, but not to alter or append to, the stored digital image of the birth certificate, whereas the document system 68 may store and edit the I-9 record and the digital image file.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to improve the method of Walker modified in view of Pang and Suzuki by letting the display mode of the vital document taught by Walker be a view-only mode as taught by Lane. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of ensuring that the vital document stored in the document repository is not tampered with.
Regarding claim 6, Walker teaches A non-transient computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions being executable by one or more processors to perform a method for storing a vital document (see Abstract: “Disclosed herein is a system for enabling secure data storage into a third party managed electronic vault that provides users with a secure location to store important documents, information, and data including but not limited to various forms of personal identifiable information.” And see col. 12, lines 63-66: “The Identification aggregate container will capture all important documents related to the user's identification. Default item categories are: Birth Certificate; Passport; SSN; Military ID; Driver's License”), the method comprising:
logging, by a user, into an account (see col. 7, lines 44-46: “If the SmartVault portal is accessed directly, the user will need to authenticate by entering their credentials into a logon page.”);
displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document (see col. 17, lines 13-19: “When a review/renew task is created from STORESECURE, all of the associated item's attachments will be copied into the new task. The user can add one or more attachments to the task by using the bulk upload dialog launched by clicking the “Add Attachment” button. Clicking on an image's filename in the attachment table displays a large sized image in a light box widget.”)
sharing the at least one vital document (see col. 23, lines 43-51: “This approach provides an excellent balance of security and convenience, and provides a number of features such as the ability to share documents with other family members”)
Walker fails to teach checking, by the one or more processors, if the account contains at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user; if the user had not uploaded the at least one vital document, prompting the user, by the one or more processors to upload the at least one vital document.
However, Pang teaches logging, by a user, into an account (see Machine Translation of the Description, page 17, [0060], lines 707 and 708: “With reference to FIG1 , the bidding and procurement account A logs in the terminal to request to publish the bidding information”);
checking, by the one or more processors, if the account contains at least one (see Machine Translation of the Description, page 18, [0063], lines 759 and 760: “If the uploaded bid document is empty and you do not agree to the release, you will be prompted to click the file upload button to upload the bid document before it can be released;” And see Machine Translation of the Claims, page 1, Claim 3: “Determine that the upload bids file is empty, do not agree with this release, suggesting that you need to click the file upload button to upload the bids file to be released”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the method of Walker by adding the steps of checking, by the one or more processors, if the account contains at least one document previously uploaded by the user; if the user had not uploaded the at least one document, prompting the user, by the one or more processors to upload the at least one document, which are taught by Pang. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of automatically reminding a user to upload at least one document in the account. Because Walker discloses a computerized method for storing a vital document, Walker modified in view of Pang as described above would teach logging, by a user, into an account; checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user; if the user had not uploaded the at least one vital document, prompting the user, by the processor, to upload the at least one vital document, as recited in claim 6.
Walker modified in view of Pang fails to teach that the at least one vital document is shared via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link.
In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches sharing the at least one (see Abstract: “An E-mail which selects a mail address of an application candidate corresponding to discernment information, and includes information relevant to the whereabouts of a document corresponding to discernment information in selected addressing to a mail address is transmitted.”) or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link (see Machine Translation [0084]: “the location information creation means 55 A creates location information including access information which is information on a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) related to the location of the document and a password associated with the access information. The access information is information on a URL for accessing the authentication screen, and the password associated with the access information is a password requested to be input on the authentication screen.” And see Machine Translation [0085]: “The access information may be, for example, a one-time URL that is information of a URL whose expiration date is set to 30 days and the number of accesses is limited to one. The password associated with the access information may be a one-time password that is valid only once. However, the expiration date of the onetime URL as the access information may be set shorter than 30 days or longer than 30 days.”).
Both Suzuki and Walker modified in view of Pang teach sharing documents in document vaults. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the delegate-access mechanism of Walker with the mechanism of sharing the at least one document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link taught by Suzuki. It would have been obvious because the substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of sharing vital documents conveniently and securely over the Internet. Because Walker modified in view of Pang discloses a computerized method for storing a vital document, Walker modified in view of Pang and Suzuki as described above would teach sharing the at least one vital document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link, as recited in claim 6.
Walker modified in view of Pang and Suzuki fails to teach that the vital document is displayed in a view-only mode in which the displayed vital document is presented without permitting modification of the stored vital document within the account.
In the same field of endeavor, Lane discloses displaying, on a display of a computer, the vital document in a view-only mode in which the displayed vital document is presented without permitting modification of the stored vital document within the account (see [0151] and Fig. 5: “For example, the employment/right-to-work document system 68 may store an I-9 record with an appended digital image file of a birth certificate in the data base 22, and the collaboraitive work environment 66 may allow the identity verification system 70 to access the stored birth certificate digital image file in order to request the identity verification system 70 to either (1) confirm the authenticity of, or (2) deny verification of the authenticity of the birth certificate. In this birth certificate example, the identity verification system is permitted only to view, but not to alter or append to, the stored digital image of the birth certificate, whereas the document system 68 may store and edit the I-9 record and the digital image file.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to improve the method of Walker modified in view of Pang and Suzuki by letting the display mode of the vital document taught by Walker be a view-only mode in which the displayed vital document is presented without permitting modification of the stored vital document within the account, as taught by Lane. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of ensuring that the vital document stored in the document repository is not tampered with.
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 12, Walker further teaches applying for the at least one vital document (see col. 11, lines 59-67: “If the Item Type defines an Expire Date property, such as passport expiry date, the Review Date common to all items will not be displayed. The Expire Date is rendered as a date picker followed by a “Create Renewal Task” button. Clicking the Renewal Task button will create and associate a new task with the item. This task will automatically be scheduled using the item's expire date, and populated with information about the item to make renewing the item a snap.”).
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 15, Walker further teaches wherein the at least one vital document is available on a Personal Account Dashboard (see col. 9, lines 66 and 67: “The STORESECURE screen is split vertically into three window panes.” And see col. 10, line 20-col. 11, line 8: “The middle pane is the Container Contents pane which displays the items found within the selected container. There are two basic types of containers: aggregate and collection. …Aggregate containers contain many different item types that share a common theme. The items are grouped by category to make managing all these items easier. …Each of the actual category boxes contains an “image stack” and the category name. … If the category contains multiple items, the stack will appear as a stack of images and it will display the thumbnail for one of these items. If the category contains only one item, it will appear as a single image stack…. All other boxes represent items in the category. These boxes contain a thumbnail image for the item, followed by the item's description. If the item does not have an attachment, the system will use a generic document icon. Otherwise, the thumbnail will be that of the attachment that is flagged as being the item's primary attachment. Double clicking on an item will open the primary attachment. If the attachment is an image, it will open in a modal dialog.” The Examiner interprets the STORESECURE screen as a Personal Account Dashboard).
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Patent No. 10,108,811), further in view of Pang (CN 106971341A), further in view of Suzuki (JP 6088102 B1), further in view of Lane (US 2004/0216039), and further in view of Badger (GB 2552849 A).
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 13, Walker modified in view of Pang, Suzuki and Lane fails to teach determining whether the account exists and wherein if the account exists, the processor processes the login further to provide access to the stored vital document workflow of claim 1.
However, Badger discloses determining whether the account exists and wherein if the account exists, the processor processes the login further (see page 2, lines 19-26: “the processing module determines if a record of the person already exists, then proceeds to provide the person with one or more options to obtain a ticket when it is determined that a record of the person exists. When it is determined that a record of the person does not exist, the processing module proceeds to request the person to create a record and register a personal identification document. The determination of whether a record of the person exists may simply involve directing the person to a login page of an online account, and allowing the person to select between logging into an existing account or creating a new account.”).
Both Walker and Badger teach logging, by a user, into an online account. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the computerized method of Walker modified in view of Pang, Suzuki and Lane by adding the step of determining whether the account exists and wherein if the account exists, the processor processes the login further taught by Badger. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of making a user login more efficient by only attempting to log a user into an existing account. Because Walker teaches logging into an account to provide access to the stored vital document workflow, when Walker modified in view Pang, Suzuki and Lane is further changed in view of Badger as described above, they would teach determining whether the account exists, and wherein if the account exists, the processor processes the login further to provide access to the stored vital document workflow of claim 1.
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 14, Walker modified in view of Pang, Suzuki and Lane fails to teach wherein, if the account does not exist, the one or more hardware processors propose to the user to create a new account for encrypted storage and controlled sharing of the at least one vital document.
However, Badger discloses wherein, if the account does not exist, the processor proposes to the user to create a new account (see page 2, lines 19-26: “the processing module determines if a record of the person already exists, then proceeds to provide the person with one or more options to obtain a ticket when it is determined that a record of the person exists. When it is determined that a record of the person does not exist, the processing module proceeds to request the person to create a record and register a personal identification document. The determination of whether a record of the person exists may simply involve directing the person to a login page of an online account, and allowing the person to select between logging into an existing account or creating a new account.”).
Both Walker and Badger teach logging, by a user, into an online account. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the computerized method of Walker modified in view of Pang, Suzuki and Lane by letting the processor propose to the user to create a new account if the account does not exist, as taught by Badger. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of guiding the user in the creation of a user account. Because Walker modified in view of Suzuki teaches encrypted storage and controlled sharing of the at least one vital document, when Walker modified in view Suzuki is further changed in view of Badger as described above, they would teach wherein, if the account does not exist, the one or more processors proposes to the user to create a new account for encrypted storage and controlled sharing of the at least one vital document.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIMEI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7990. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm Monday-Friday.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 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 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.
/ZHIMEI ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights