CTNF 18/135,307 CTNF 93451 DETAILED ACTION Status of the Application 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The amendment filed on Feb 27, 2026 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended; Claims 9, 16, and 19 were previously canceled. Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 are pending. Response to Amendment Claim Objections have been added. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejections have been added in light of the amendment. 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment. 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s, 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “encrypted file” should read “encrypted electronic file” for antecedent basis and consistent claim language . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim s, 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the verbal audio approval file” should read “the verbal approval audio file” for antecedent basis and consistent claim language . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the audio-recording mechanism” should read “an audio-recording mechanism” because an audio-recording mechanism was never introduced . Appropriate correction is required 07-29-01 AIA Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ an audio-receiving device in communication with at least one of the one or more first processor devices and an audio-recording mechanism” should read “ the audio-receiving device in communication with at least one of the one or more first processor devices and the audio-recording mechanism” because audio-receiving device and audio-recording mechanism were previously introduced in claim 1 . Appropriate correction is required Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following 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. 07-31-02 AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “applying one or more hash algorithms to the electronic document and the verbal approval audio file to form an encrypted file comprising the electronic document and the verbal audio approval file.” The specification fails to teach a person of ordinary skilled in the art how to perform this step without undue experimentation because the limitation describes a cryptographic and technical impossibility. A POSITA in the field of computer science understands that a has algorithm (e.g., SHA-256) is a one-way mathematical function that maps data of arbitrary size to a fixed-size bit string. A has algorithm does not encrypt data which implies a two-way function using cryptographic keys for decryption, nor can a resulting hash digest comprise the original electronic document and audio file, as the original data is inherently destroyed/converted during the hashing process. While paragraph [0044] of the specification recites this exact phrase, it merely states the function and result without providing any technical disclosure, algorithms, or instruction on how a system could use a hash algorithm to create an encrypted file that encapsulates the original files with audio file. Because the specification lacks the technical details required to achieved this result, the claims are not enabled . 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 20 recites “The computer-implemented method of Claim 15” which is found to be indefinite. Claim 15 should be “The computer program product” however, claim 20 is similarly recited to claim 18, which is interpreted to be duplicated claims. Then claim 13 recites the same functional limitations for the computer-implemented method of claim 12. For the purpose of expediting compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “The computer-implemented method of Claim 15” to be --The computer program product of Claim 15--, which is duplicate of claim 18. Claims 1, 8, 15 recite require that the input is received from the user is “a verbal approval spoken by the user and subsequently recorded… to form a verbal approval audio file.” However, dependent claims 4, 11, 18, and 20 recite the verbal approval audio file is a “preregistered verbal approval audio file” which means it was recorded previously, not subsequently recorded in response to the presentation of the document. Appropriate clarification or correction is required Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite logically attaching the file “in response to receiving the at least one input.” However, dependent claims 6 and 13 recite receiving a “non-verbal input,” which directly contradicts the requirement set in the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 for input to be a verbal approval spoken by the user. Appropriate clarification or correction is required Claims 2-7, 10-14, 17, 18, and 20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03) In the present application, claims 1-7 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine), claims 8 and 10-14 are directed to method (i.e. a process), and claims 15, 17, 18, and 20 are directed to a computer product (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1. Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04) While claims 1, 8, and 15, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below. The abstract idea recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, is In response to authenticating an identity of a user, present the user with document having one or more signature requirements for the user to approve contents of the document, receive at least one input from the user that is configured to approve the contents of the document, wherein the at least one input from the user is a verbal approval spoken by the user and subsequently recorded to form a verbal approval audio file, in response to receiving the at least one input, logically attach the verbal approval audio file to the document and provide a timestamp that indicates a date and a time of the logical attachment, and receive and store the encrypted file and the timestamp. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of executing a signature to approve a document (i.e., forming a legal agreement or contract). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, excluding the additional elements of computer components, the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites steps for: authenticating a user; presenting an electronic document having signature requirements; receiving an input from the user to approve the content (a spoken verbal approval); recording the approval; logically attaching the approval to the document; applying a timestamp; and storing the document. The concept of presenting a document to a suer, receiving their consent/approval, and attaching a record of that consent along with the date and time to the document is a fundamental economic practice and routine method of organizing human activity of commercial and legal interactions. The substitution of a traditional wet signature or typed e-signature with a recorded verbal approval audio file is merely a change in the type of data used to present the human activity/act of agreement. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two. Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer. The additional elements considered include: Claim 1: “a computing platform including a memory, an audio-receiving device, an audio recording mechanism, and one or more first processor devices in communication with the memory, wherein the memory stores a voice consent document approval application, executable by at least one of the one or more first processor devices and configured to:” “electronic document”; “logically attach a verbal approval audio file to the electronic document”; “a data repository configured to”; “by the audio-receiving device and recorded by the audio-recording mechanism,” “by the audio-recording mechanism to form a verbal approval audio,” “by applying one or more hash algorithms to the electronic document and the verbal approval audio file to form an encrypted file comprising the electronic document and the verbal approval file”; “a data repository configured to” Claim 8: “computer-implemented method for digital approval of electronic documents, the method is executed by one or more processing devices and comprises:” “electronic document”; “logically attaching the verbal approval audio file to the electronic document by applying one or more hash algorithms to the electronic document and the verbal approval audio file to form an encrypted file comprising the electronic document and the verbal approval file”; “a data repository”; Claim 15: “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising”; “a first set of codes for causing a computer processing device to,” “electronic document”; “a second set of codes for causing a computer processing device to”; “a third set of codes for causing a computer processing device logically attach the verbal approval audio file to the electronic document by applying one or more hash algorithms to the electronic document and the verbal approval audio file to form an encrypted file comprising the electronic document and the verbal approval file”; “by the audio-recording mechanism to form a verbal approval audio,” “a fourth set of codes to store, in a data repository, the encrypted file and the timestamp,” The claims only recite the above-mentioned additional elements to authenticate, present, receive, attach, approve, apply, and store information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0031]-[0038], [0066], [0073], and Fig. 3, 9, and 11) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. That is, the function of limitations [A]-[D] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) . The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations of [A]-[D] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for executing a signature to approve a document. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible. As for dependent claims 2-4, 10, 11, 17, and 18, these claims further define the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The claims further recite abstract steps of receiving input comprises verbal approval spoken by the user to form the verbal approval; compare the recorded verbal approval to a prerecorded or preregistered voice sample audio file to confirmation and attach timestamp, which do not change the abstract idea of the independent claims. The claims recite another abstract step that can be performed by a person manually using cassette or vinyl to record verbal spoken by a user to form the verbal approval record. The additional elements of computer components of processor, audio-receiving device to receive and record information is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0031]-[0038], [0066], [0073], and Fig. 3, 9, and 11) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible. As for dependent claims 5 and 12, these claims further define the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The claims further recite abstract steps of receiving and recording voice sample and comparing the received voice sample to prerecorded voice to authenticate the identity of the user, which do not change the abstract idea of the independent claims. The claims recite abstract steps that can be performed by a person manually including receiving and recording voice in cassette or vinyl and compare the voice to prerecorded sample to authenticate user. The additional elements of computer components of processor, authentication application, audio-receiving device to receive and record information is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0031]-[0038], [0066], [0073], and Fig. 3, 9, and 11) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible. As for dependent claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20, these claims further define the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The claims further recite abstract steps of receiving and attach information, which do not change the abstract idea of the independent claims. The additional elements of computer components for receiving and attach information, is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0031]-[0038], [0066], [0073], and Fig. 3, 9, and 11) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible. In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Estrin (US 20040102959 A1) . Claims 1, 8, and 15, Estrin discloses a system, a computer-implemented method, and a computer program product (Abstract, method, apparatus, media and signals) comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable (para. [0037]-[0038], computer-readable medium storing codes) ; a computing platform including a memory, an audio-receiving device (para. [0072], “microphone 76”) , an audio recording mechanism (para. [0080], “voice recorder application 112”), and one or more first processor devices in communication with the memory (para. [0064] processor or microprocessor in communication with a storage medium), wherein the memory stores a voice consent document approval application, executable by at least one of the one or more first processor devices and configured to (para. [0065], the storage medium 100 stores an operating system 101, and further stores a plurality of routines and files, including an authentication resource 102 and a file 104. In this embodiment, the authentication resource 102 configures the processor circuit 52 to. The operating system including authentication resource 102 is representative of voice consent document approval application): in response to authenticating an identity of a user, present the user with an electronic document having one or more signature requirements for the user to approve contents of the electronic document (para. [0009], “an improved authentication method for authenticating a user's approval of a document or other electronic file.” Para. [0029] and [0063], “method includes receiving an authentication voice sample, of a user of a file, associated with the file to indicate approval by the user of contents of the file”. Further description provided in at least para. [0065] and [0095]), receive, by the audio-receiving device (para. [0072], “microphone 76”) and recorded by the audio-recording mechanism (para. [0080], “voice recorder application 112”) at least one input from the user that is configured to approve the contents of the electronic document (para. [0019], [0095], and [0132] disclosing unique utterance received from the user ass unique affirmative script for the approval of the content of the file/document), wherein the at least one input is a verbal approval spoken by the user and subsequently recorded by the audio-recording mechanism to form a verbal approval audio file (Para. [0137], states "block 440 directs the processor circuit to invoke the voice recorder application 112 to direct the processor circuit 52 to receive, via the I/O interface 56, signals produced by the microphone 76 in response to an audible utterance made by the user 58... The voice recorder application directs the processor circuit 52 to store digital data representing the received signals in the authentication voice sample register 202...". This data is then saved as the "temporary authentication voice sample file 114" (para. [0141]) which forms the "voice byte stream" i.e., the verbal approval audio file.), and in response to receiving the at least one input, logically attach the verbal approval audio file to the electronic document by applying one or more hash algorithms to the electronic document and the verbal approval audio file to form an encrypted filed comprising the electronic document and the verbal audio approval file (para. [0023], [0032], [0078], [0090], [0097], [0146]-[0147], and [0163] discloses the applying of hashing algorithm to electronic document and verbal approval audio file to form encrypted or signature file comprising the document file and verbal approval audio file) and provide a timestamp that indicates a date and a time of the logical attachment (Para [0021] states: "Storing may also involve storing the sample in the file, which may be achieved by storing the sample in an embedded stream in the file. This may involve storing the sample in an object pool portion of a document file, for example." Estrin states: "If desired, storing may further include storing a timestamp in association with the authentication voice sample." (Estrin, [0022]). "The timestamp field 228 is used to store a value representing the time and date at which the user 58 approved the file." (Estrin, [0096]). This timestamp is stored as part of the signature authentication object 212 within the file (Estrin, [0089], [0152], [0163])), and a data repository configured to receive and store the encrypted electronic file and the timestamp (Estrin para. [0064],"storage medium 100" (e.g., hard disk drive) serves as the data repository. When the file (e.g., file 104) containing the embedded "authentication voice sample 106" and associated timestamp is saved, it is stored on this medium. (Estrin, [0086], [0161]-[0163])). Claims 2, Estrin discloses system of claim 1. Estrin further discloses, wherein computing platform further comprises (i) the audio-receiving device (para. [0072], “microphone 76”) i n communication with at least one of the one or more first processor devices and (ii) the audio-recording mechanism (para. [0080], “voice recorder application 112”) in communication with the audio-receiving device and at least one of the one or more first processor devices (para. [0137], “if the record button 416 has been actuated, block 440 directs the processor circuit to invoke the voice recorder application 112 to direct the processor circuit 52 to receive, via the I/O interface 56, signals produced by the microphone 76 in response to an audible utterance made by the user 58,”). Claims 3, 10, and 17, Estrin discloses system of claim 1, the computer-readable method of claim 8, and the computer program product of claim 15. Estrin further discloses, compare the recorded verbal approval to a prerecorded voice sample audio file associated with the user to confirm that the verbal approval was spoken by the user (Claim 48, “validating comprises comparing signals representing said authentication voice sample to signals representing a comparison voice sample of said user.” Para. [0034], “validating may include comparing signals representing the authentication voice sample to signals representing a comparison voice sample. Thus, if a person who appears to have associated his or her authentication voice sample to indicate approval of the file denies having done so and thus wishes to repudiate such approval, the person may be requested to provide the comparison voice sample for the purpose of determining whether or not the authentication voice sample was in fact spoken by the person in question.” Additional detail provided in para. [0192]-[0196]), and in response to confirming that the verbal approval was spoken by the user, logically attach the verbal approval audio file to the electronic document and provide the timestamp that indicates the date and the time of the logical attachment (para. [0022], [0095], [0148]-[0152], and [0163]). Claims 4, 11, and 18, Estrin discloses system of claim 1, the computer-readable method of claim 8, and the computer program product of claim 15. Estrin further discloses, logically attach the verbal approval audio file to the electronic document, wherein the verbal approval audio file is a preregistered verbal approval audio file, wherein preregistration provides for verification that the user has spoken or authorized the verbal approval in the audio file (para. [0017], “"If the textual representation does not match the unique affirmation script," the user is prompted to re-utter.” Para. [0018], “This provides an extra degree of security against subsequent repudiation by the user... as it precludes the user from arguing that the recorded authentication voice sample is not an utterance of the corresponding unique affirmation script which is uniquely associated with the particular file.” Para. [0141], “block 452 directs the processor circuit 52 to call a COM interface “Save” method exposed by the voice recorder application 112 to control the processor circuit to save the contents of the authentication voice sample register 202 to the storage medium 100, as a temporary authentication voice sample file 114, which in this embodiment is a .wav file. Block 452 then directs the processor circuit to generate and store a voice byte stream in response to the contents of the temporary authentication voice sample file 114, and to store the voice byte stream in the voice byte stream field 240. In this embodiment, the voice byte stream has the same binary format as the .wav file stored as the temporary authentication voice sample file 114.” And para. [0147] disclosing the verifying/validating the utterance of the unique affirmation script with the stored temporary authentication voice sample previously recorded). Claims 5 and 12, Estrin discloses system of claim 1 and the computer-readable method of claim 8. Estrin further discloses, wherein the computing platform further comprises an audio-receiving device in communication with at least one of the one or more first processor devices and an audio-recording mechanism in communication with the audio-receiving device and at least one of the one or more first processor devices, and wherein the memory of the computing platform further comprises an authentication application, executable by at least one of the one or more first processor devices and configured to (para. [0072], [0080], [0136]-[0137] disclosing recorder and voice recorder application configured with processor for authentication): receive, at the audio-receiving device, and record, with the audio-recording mechanism, a voice sample from the user (para. [0136]-[0137]), and compare the received voice sample to a prerecorded voice sample audio file associated with the user to authenticate the identity of the user (para. [0034], [0192]-[0194] and claims 1 and 48). Claims 6, 13, and 20, Estrin discloses system of claim 5, the computer-readable method of claim 12, and the computer program product of claim 15. Estrin further discloses, receive the at least one input from the user that is configured to approve the contents of the electronic document, wherein the at least one input is a non-verbal input (para. [0023], [0032], [0094], [0109]-[0113], [0159], and Fig. 5 disclosing user input of signature to approve the content of the electronic document), logically attach the verbal approval audio file to the electronic document, wherein the verbal approval audio file is a preregistered verbal approval audio file, wherein preregistration provides for verification that the user has spoken or authorized the verbal approval in the audio file (para. [0017], “"If the textual representation does not match the unique affirmation script," the user is prompted to re-utter.” Para. [0018], “This provides an extra degree of security against subsequent repudiation by the user... as it precludes the user from arguing that the recorded authentication voice sample is not an utterance of the corresponding unique affirmation script which is uniquely associated with the particular file.” Para. [0141], “block 452 directs the processor circuit 52 to call a COM interface “Save” method exposed by the voice recorder application 112 to control the processor circuit to save the contents of the authentication voice sample register 202 to the storage medium 100, as a temporary authentication voice sample file 114, which in this embodiment is a .wav file. Block 452 then directs the processor circuit to generate and store a voice byte stream in response to the contents of the temporary authentication voice sample file 114, and to store the voice byte stream in the voice byte stream field 240. In this embodiment, the voice byte stream has the same binary format as the .wav file stored as the temporary authentication voice sample file 114.” And para. [0147] disclosing the verifying/validating the utterance of the unique affirmation script with the stored temporary authentication voice sample previously recorded). Claims 7 and 14, Estrin discloses system of claim 1 and the computer-readable method of claim 8. Estrin further discloses, input a preregistered electronic signature associated with the user in one or more signature entry fields within the electronic document, wherein preregistration provides for verification that the electronic signature is associated with the user (para. [0023], [0032], [0094], [0109]-[0113], [0159], and Fig. 5 disclosing user input of signature to approve the content of the electronic document), and logically attach the preregistered electronic signature to the electronic document. (para. [0017], “"If the textual representation does not match the unique affirmation script," the user is prompted to re-utter.” Para. [0018], “This provides an extra degree of security against subsequent repudiation by the user... as it precludes the user from arguing that the recorded authentication voice sample is not an utterance of the corresponding unique affirmation script which is uniquely associated with the particular file.” Para. [0141], “block 452 directs the processor circuit 52 to call a COM interface “Save” method exposed by the voice recorder application 112 to control the processor circuit to save the contents of the authentication voice sample register 202 to the storage medium 100, as a temporary authentication voice sample file 114, which in this embodiment is a .wav file. Block 452 then directs the processor circuit to generate and store a voice byte stream in response to the contents of the temporary authentication voice sample file 114, and to store the voice byte stream in the voice byte stream field 240. In this embodiment, the voice byte stream has the same binary format as the .wav file stored as the temporary authentication voice sample file 114.” And para. [0147] disclosing the verifying/validating the utterance of the unique affirmation script with the stored temporary authentication voice sample previously recorded). Response to Remarks 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection: The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive. The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended claim limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the amended amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments. Although the arguments are deemed moot, the Examiner will rephrase the response below. The Applicant asserts the use of audio-receiving device and audio-recording mechanism is specific technological operations that cannot be performed by the human mind, nor can a human apply one or more hash algorithms to encrypt an audio file with a corresponding electronic document. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner asserts, the Applicant’s analysis has conflated the abstract idea under Step 2A prong 1 with the additional elements under steps 2A prong 2 and 2B. Under step 2A prong 1, the Office asserts the functional steps of the amended claim is directed to an abstract idea of managing and approving documents using verbal audio from a person, which falls under both “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” categories of the abstract ideas. As discussed in the 101 analysis above, without the additional elements of the computer device and audio-receiving device, the functioning steps of the claim limitations are steps that can be performed by a person, manually and mentally. Specifically to Applicant’s remarks, an agent or clerk can record or write the verbal agreement spoken by the client and store it in file. Further, the step of hashing and encryption to file have been manually step performed by human using pen and paper before the invention of computers. We analyze the additional elements, (e.g., “a computing platform including a memory and at one or more first processor devices in communication with the memory, wherein the memory stores a voice consent document approval application, executable by at least one of the one or more first processor devices and configured to:” “electronic document”; “logically attach a verbal approval audio file to the electronic document”; “a data repository configured to”; “by an audio-receiving device and recorded by an audio-recording mechanism,” “by the audio-recording mechanism to form a verbal approval audio,”) under steps 2A prong 2 “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” and the analysis of step 2A prong 2 is carried over to step 2B, “does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” The Office asserts MPEP 2106.05(f) answers the question affirmatively. The additional elements - the use of “a computing platform including a memory and at one or more first processor devices in communication with the memory, wherein the memory stores a voice consent document approval application, executable by at least one of the one or more first processor devices and configured to:” “electronic document”; “logically attach a verbal approval audio file to the electronic document”; “a data repository configured to”; “by an audio-receiving device and recorded by an audio-recording mechanism,” “by the audio-recording mechanism to form a verbal approval audio,” in the steps are recited a high-level of generality, see [0031]-[0038], [0066], [0073], and Fig. 3, 9, and 1 of the Applicant’s specification. The function of limitations [A]-[E] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) , “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the resul t, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” In Applicant’s specification nor the claim recite specific technological detail for the improvement of recording audio or hashing algorithms, but rather, the claims merely recite the use or apply it on the additional elements of computer device and audio receiving device for the convenience (more efficient, accurate, reliable, etc.) they provide on the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. That is, the claims do not recite a specific improvement to the technology of the additional elements or software functions, but only to use the known technology for result-based solution. Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims do not affect an improvement to the computer functionality or any other technology. The Applicant’s Specification states that the invention solves the problem of users with disabilities (e.g., vision impairment, typing impairment) having difficulty navigating traditional e-signature fields (App. Specification at [0003]). While this is admirable goal that improves the user experience, this is a business focused process for obtaining a signature, but not a technological improvement to the computer itself. The claims invoke the generic computer components (computing platform, memory, processor, audio-receiving device (microphone), audio-recording mechanism, data repository) operating in its ordinary and expected capacities to perform the tasks of the abstract idea. Using a microphone to record audio, using a processor to apply a hashing algorithm, generating a timestamp, and storing a file in a repository are simply uses of a computer as a tool to execute the abstract idea of document approval (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Because the computer components are invoked merely as a tool, and the claims do not recite any specific, technical way in which the computer’s operation is improved, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the additional elements of the computer components are evaluated individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the 101 rejection is maintained. 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejection: The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive. The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended claim limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the amended amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments. Although the arguments are deemed moot, the Examiner will rephrase the response below. The Applicant asserts, the Office’s cited reference does not teach or suggest the amended claim limitation. In view of the 112(a) rejection, the Examiner under the broadest reasonable interpretation, interprets the claim limitation “ logically attach the verbal approval audio file to the electronic document by applying one or more hash algorithms to the electronic document and the verbal approval audio file to form an encrypted filed comprising the electronic document and the verbal audio approval file” to describe the creation of a digital signature (hashing the files and encrypting the hash) . Estrin discloses the exact cryptographic process of the claim limitation, In para. [0146]-[0147] Estrin takes the text portion of the document and the voice byte stream, places them into a hash object, applies an MD5 hash algorithm to produce a digital digest, and then encrypts the hash value suing an RSA encryption standard. Then in para. [0161]-[0163] states the embed of the voice sample, then encrypted has, and a timestamp directly into the file’s data stream (OCXDATA portion). While the Applicant cites a portion from Estrin and asserts it does not disclose or suggest the claim limitation, the Applicant does not describe the specifics of the claim limitation or how it functions differently from the cited reference, Estrin. The Applicant’s remarks are found to be unpersuasive. Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known: Taple et al. (US 20180315429 A1) is directed to a system and method for recording sworn deposition testimony of participants in a deposition or other legal proceeding. In para. [0031] teaches the use of microphone to capture audio of participants associated with recorded audio segments, utilized to identify speaker(s) based on stored user profiles. Para. [0032], “determines whether each deposition participant is a valid deposition participant whose speech may be identified in audio recordings.” Para. [0038], “as audio storage module 230 operates to store recorded audio, speaker identification module 232 analyzes recorded audio (e.g., based on which microphone 105 recorded the audio, or based on matching with stored user profiles as described above),” Ross et al. (US 20070094510 A1) is directed to system and method for generating a certified electronic document that includes receiving identification information associated with a signatory user from a computer. From the same computer, identification information associated with a notary user is also received. At least one electronic document that requires certification is identified on a display. A first user command is received from the computer identifying the assent of the signatory user to the execution of the at least one electronic document. A second user command is received from the computer identifying the assent of the notary user to the certification of the at least one electronic document. Official indicia associated with the notary user is applied to the at least one electronic document to create at least one certified document. W. Seymour, M. Cote, J. Such, “Legal Obligation and Ethical Best Practice: Towards Meaningful Verbal Consent for Voice Assistants”; Jan 19, 2023; Computer Science, Human-Computer Interaction; https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.08091. Teaching the use of verbal consent in documentation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM. 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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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. /WENREN CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 2 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 3 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 4 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 5 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 6 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 7 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 8 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 9 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 10 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 11 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 13 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 14 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 15 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 16 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 17 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 18 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 19 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 20 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 21 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 22 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 23 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 24 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/135,307 Page 25 Art Unit: 3626
Prosecution Insights