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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previously raised rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 to claims 6-10 have been overcome by Applicant’s amendment and are therefore withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First of all, Applicant argues that “Walker merely discloses generating a thumbnail and opening an attachment in a modal dialog.1 However, nothing in Walker prevents the user from downloading, editing, or otherwise manipulating the document once opened. By contrast, the claimed "view-only mode" is a technical restriction that prohibits the user from saving, downloading, modifying, or permanently storing the document locally. This ensures that vital documents remain controlled within the secure vault environment. Walker's "modal display" is not the same as the "view-only mode" of the pending claims. A modal display is merely a user interface feature, not a security control. Applicants' claimed "view-only mode" imposes a substantive limitation on user rights and system functionality not taught by Walker.”
(Remarks, page 1, last ¶ and page 2, ¶ 1)
The Examiner respectfully responds as follows. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., prohibiting the user from saving, downloading, modifying, or permanently storing the document locally) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, "view-only mode" does not prohibit the user from saving, downloading, modifying, or permanently storing the document locally because the instant claim 1 recites “view-only mode” and “sharing the at least one vital document … via download to a local device”.
Next, Applicant argues the following: “the combination with Suzuki is improper. Suzuki discloses one-time URL/password distribution for government documents. Walker, however, emphasizes persistent storage and auditability within a controlled vault. Incorporating Suzuki's transient distribution would undermine Walker's purpose of maintaining a consistent, permanent repository of vital records. The proposed combination is not a "predictable use of prior art elements" under KSR, but instead represents a redesign inconsistent with the teachings of Walker. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Walker and Suzuki in the manner proposed”.
(Remarks, page 2, ¶¶ 2 and 3)
The Examiner respectfully responds as follows. Suzuki's transient distribution does not undermine Walker's purpose of maintaining a consistent, permanent repository of vital records because distribution of vital records from a repository does not change the copies of the vital records permanently stored in the repository. Therefore, the proposed combination does not represent a redesign inconsistent with the teachings of Walker.
Additionally, Applicant argues the following: “Claim 6 recites similar limitations in the context of a dashboard interface, including (1) prompting for missing vital documents, (2) displaying uploaded documents in view-only mode, and (3) enabling secure sharing with designated recipients. As with claim 1, Walker fails to disclose a true view-only mode that restricts user actions beyond mere modal display. Further, Walker provides its own sharing mechanisms internal to the vault, whereas Suzuki's temporary link/password distribution paradigm is incompatible with Walker's architecture. Combining Suzuki's external, transient sharing with Walker's centralized vault runs counter to Walker's design principles.”
(Remarks, page 2, ¶¶ 4 and 5)
The Examiner respectfully responds as follows. Suzuki's temporary link/password distribution paradigm is not incompatible with Walker's architecture. Combining Suzuki's external, transient sharing with Walker's centralized vault does not run counter to Walker's design principles. For the sake of argument, even if Walker provides its own sharing mechanisms internal to the vault, which the Examiner does not admit, 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.
In addition, Applicant argues the following: “claim 11's recitation of computer-executable instructions adds an implementation detail absent from the cited references. Walker and Suzuki describe high-level functional concepts, but do not disclose the programming of a medium to enforce restricted view-only access combined with secure transient sharing.”
(Remarks, page 3, ¶ 1)
The Examiner respectfully responds as follows. Walker clearly teaches the programming of a medium to enforce restricted view-only access because Walker recites “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions for an electronic safety deposit box” in claim 11. Suzuki also discloses the programming of a medium to provide secure transient sharing because Suzuki teaches “an electronic application support program for acquiring and distributing a document created by a public organization in response to electronic application” (see Machine Translation, [0001]).
Next, Applicant argues the following: “Badger discloses a document verification service for identity checks. Its focus is on enabling third parties (e.g., banks) to verify identity credentials. Badger's account management is incidental to that identity-verification framework. By contrast, the present claims are directed to a secure vital document storage and controlled sharing system. The claimed account-creation workflow is tightly integrated into the logic of ensuring that vital documents remain protected while still allowing user-controlled, time-limited sharing. Because Badger's context and purpose differ substantially, its account-creation teachings would not be naturally combined with the teachings of Walker or Suzuki.”
(Remarks, page 3, ¶¶ 3-5)
The Examiner respectfully responds as follows. The context and purpose of Badger does not need to identical to that of Walker and Suzuki. It is natural to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Badger with Walker modified in view of Suzuki because the account management technique taught by Badger is a solution to the problem of the instant claim.
Further, Applicant argues the following: “Claims 4, 9, and 14 recite proposing account creation if no account exists. Badger does not disclose this conditional, processor-driven logic in the claimed manner. At most, Badger describes registration and authentication in the abstract, without the specific flow of (1) checking for account existence, (2) allowing login if found, and (3) otherwise actively proposing account creation to the user. In the claimed invention, the system itself manages the user workflow in a security- conscious environment. Badger merely presumes ordinary registration/authentication as part of its identity-check service.”
(Remarks, page 3, ¶¶ 6-8)
The Examiner respectfully responds as follows. First of all, Badger clearly teaches the conditional, processor-driver logic (see page 1, lines 35-41: “The system comprises … processing module configured to provide, upon request by the person to obtain a ticket, one or more options for the person to obtain a ticket, and update, when the person has obtained a ticket, the record of the person to indicate that the ticket is allocated to the person by associating the ticket to the personal identification document registered with the record of the person.”) of (1) checking for account existence, (2) allowing login if found, and (3) otherwise actively proposing account creation to the user (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.” The Examiner interprets “determin[ing] if a record of the person already exists” as (1) checking for account existence. The Examiner further interprets “directing the person to a login page of an online account, and allowing the person to select between logging into an existing account” as (2) allowing login if found. Finally, the Examiner interprets “directing the person to a login page of an online account, and allowing the person to select between … or creating a new account” as (3) otherwise actively proposing account creation to the user.).
Next, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., manages the user workflow in a security- conscious environment) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Finally, Applicant argues the following: “a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to graft Badger's account-management flow onto the Walker/Suzuki combination. Walker is directed to long-term vault storage of uploaded records. Suzuki is directed to time-limited external sharing of government documents. Badger is directed to identity verification services. Each solves a different problem.”.
(Remarks, page 3, last ¶ and page 4, ¶ 1)
The Examiner respectfully responds as follows. The context and purpose of Badger does not need to identical to that of Walker and Suzuki. It is natural to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Badger with Walker modified in view of Suzuki because the account management technique taught by Badger is a solution to the problem of the instant claim.
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), and further in view of Suzuki (JP 6088102 B1).
Regarding claim 1, 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.”);
checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user (see col. 18, lines 53-62: “a task that requires the user ensure his family's passports are in order might have links to the Passport item in each of their Identification containers. Tasks created using the Checklist Template wizard can contain links to placeholders for items that are not yet in the user's STORESECURE. By clicking on these links, the user will be prompted to upload an image of each item and provide basic information about them (e.g., a placeholder link to a driver's license would ask for the user's license number and expiration date).” Placeholders for items such as passports are only created when it is determined that if the account does not contain at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user (such as a passport). Therefore, by disclosing “links to placeholders for items that are not yet in the user's STORESECURE”, Walker inherently teaches 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 (see col. 18, lines 53-62: “a task that requires the user ensure his family's passports are in order might have links to the Passport item in each of their Identification containers. Tasks created using the Checklist Template wizard can contain links to placeholders for items that are not yet in the user's STORESECURE. By clicking on these links, the user will be prompted to upload an image of each item and provide basic information about them (e.g., a placeholder link to a driver's license would ask for the user's license number and expiration date).”).
In the embodiment of prompting a user to upload a vital document disclosed by Walker in col. 18, lines 53-62, Walker fails to explicitly teach “displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode”.
However, Walker discloses in a different embodiment displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode (see col. 10, line 20-col. 11, line 8: “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 opening an attachment that is an image in a modal dialog as displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode).
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 embodiment of prompting a user to upload a vital document disclosed by Walker in col. 18, lines 53-62 by adding the step of displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode taught by the different embodiment of Walker described in col. 10, line 20-col. 11, line 8. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of enabling the user to view the uploaded vital document.
Walker fails to 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.
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.”).
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 step 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 Suzuki teaches that doing so achieves the following benefit: “It is possible to reduce artificial processing, so that documents transmitted from public institutions in response to electronic applications can be transferred to each application subject under a highly secure environment Can be efficiently provided” (see Suzuki Machine Translation [0010]). 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, as recited in claim 1.
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, the method comprising (see Claim 11: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions for an electronic safety deposit box, the computer-readable instructions comprising instructions that cause a processor to:” And 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”):
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.”);
checking, by the one or more processors, if the account contains at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user (see col. 18, lines 53-62: “a task that requires the user ensure his family's passports are in order might have links to the Passport item in each of their Identification containers. Tasks created using the Checklist Template wizard can contain links to placeholders for items that are not yet in the user's STORESECURE. By clicking on these links, the user will be prompted to upload an image of each item and provide basic information about them (e.g., a placeholder link to a driver's license would ask for the user's license number and expiration date).” Placeholders for items such as passports are only created when it is determined that if the account does not contain at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user (such as a passport). Therefore, by disclosing “links to placeholders for items that are not yet in the user's STORESECURE”, Walker inherently teaches 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 one or more processors, to upload the at least one vital document (see col. 18, lines 53-62: “a task that requires the user ensure his family's passports are in order might have links to the Passport item in each of their Identification containers. Tasks created using the Checklist Template wizard can contain links to placeholders for items that are not yet in the user's STORESECURE. By clicking on these links, the user will be prompted to upload an image of each item and provide basic information about them (e.g., a placeholder link to a driver's license would ask for the user's license number and expiration date).”).
In the embodiment of prompting a user to upload a vital document disclosed by Walker in col. 18, lines 53-62, Walker fails to explicitly teach “displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode”.
However, Walker discloses in a different embodiment displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode (see col. 10, line 20-col. 11, line 8: “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 opening an attachment that is an image in a modal dialog as displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode).
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 embodiment of prompting a user to upload a vital document disclosed by Walker in col. 18, lines 53-62 by adding the step of displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode taught by the different embodiment of Walker described in col. 10, line 20-col. 11, line 8. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of enabling the user to view the uploaded vital document.
Walker fails to 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.
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.”).
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 non-transient computer-readable storage medium of Walker by adding instructions for performing the step 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 Suzuki teaches that doing so achieves the following benefit: “It is possible to reduce artificial processing, so that documents transmitted from public institutions in response to electronic applications can be transferred to each application subject under a highly secure environment Can be efficiently provided” (see Suzuki Machine Translation [0010]). Because Walker discloses a 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, as recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 11, Walker teaches A system comprising: one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: (see Claim 1: “An electronic safety deposit box comprising: a memory; and a hardware processor for:”)
log, 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.”);
check, by the one or more hardware processors, if the account contains at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user (see col. 18, lines 53-62: “a task that requires the user ensure his family's passports are in order might have links to the Passport item in each of their Identification containers. Tasks created using the Checklist Template wizard can contain links to placeholders for items that are not yet in the user's STORESECURE. By clicking on these links, the user will be prompted to upload an image of each item and provide basic information about them (e.g., a placeholder link to a driver's license would ask for the user's license number and expiration date).” Placeholders for items such as passports are only created when it is determined that if the account does not contain at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user (such as a passport). Therefore, by disclosing “links to placeholders for items that are not yet in the user's STORESECURE”, Walker inherently teaches 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, prompt the user, by the one or more hardware processors, to upload the at least one vital document (see col. 18, lines 53-62: “a task that requires the user ensure his family's passports are in order might have links to the Passport item in each of their Identification containers. Tasks created using the Checklist Template wizard can contain links to placeholders for items that are not yet in the user's STORESECURE. By clicking on these links, the user will be prompted to upload an image of each item and provide basic information about them (e.g., a placeholder link to a driver's license would ask for the user's license number and expiration date).”).
In the embodiment of prompting a user to upload a vital document disclosed by Walker in col. 18, lines 53-62, Walker fails to explicitly teach that the one or more hardware processors are configured to: “display, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode”.
However, Walker discloses in a different embodiment that the one or more hardware processors are configured to: display, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode (see col. 10, line 20-col. 11, line 8: “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 opening an attachment that is an image in a modal dialog as displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode).
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 embodiment of prompting a user to upload a vital document disclosed by Walker in col. 18, lines 53-62 by adding the step of displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode taught by the different embodiment of Walker described in col. 10, line 20-col. 11, line 8. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of enabling the user to view the uploaded vital document.
Walker fails to teach that the one or more hardware processors are configured to: share 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.
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.”).
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 system of Walker by letting the one or more hardware processors be configured to share 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, as taught by Suzuki. It would have been obvious because Suzuki teaches that doing so achieves the following benefit: “It is possible to reduce artificial processing, so that documents transmitted from public institutions in response to electronic applications can be transferred to each application subject under a highly secure environment Can be efficiently provided” (see Suzuki Machine Translation [0010]). Because Walker discloses a method for storing a vital document, Walker modified in view of Suzuki as described above would teach share 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 11.
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 Suzuki (JP 6088102 B1), and further in view of Badger (GB 2552849 A).
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 13, Walker modified in view of Suzuki fails to teach determining whether the account exists and wherein if the account exists, the processor processes the login further.
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.”).
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.
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 14, Walker modified in view of Suzuki fails to teach wherein, if the account does not exist, the processor proposes to the user to create a new account.
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.”).
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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