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 .
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 10/29/25, the Applicant amended claims 1, 11, 16, and argued claims previously rejected in the Office Action dated 7/29/25. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvord, United States Patent Publication 2023/0134056, in view of GARDENES LINAN, United States Patent Publication 2016/0020909 (hereinafter “GARDENES LINAN”), in further view of Griffin et al., United States Patent No. 11436597 (hereinafter “Griffin”) and Thuenis, United States Patent Publication 2020/0410616.
Claim 1:
Alvord discloses:
A method for collaborative document signing, comprising:
initiating a live communication session including a user (see paragraphs [0049], [0059] and [0070]). Alvord teaches initiating a live communication session with a user in real-time;
identifying a source document for an agreement using an agreement signing interface of the live communication session (see paragraphs [0073] and [0078]). Alvord teaches identifying a source document for an agreement using agreement signing interface;
populating, by the agreement signing interface of the live communication session, a user identifier field of the agreement signing interface with a user identifier of the user of the communication session in response to authentication of the user into the communication session using the user identifier (see paragraph [0093]). Alvord teaches a user populating the field, authenticating the user then creating the session based on the authentication and assigning the user to the session. The user identifier field remains populated verified based on verification through authentication. A users name can be an identifier.
assigning the user as a signer of the agreement in response to receiving a selection input to an element of the agreement signing interface associated with the user identifier field (see paragraph [0093]). Alvord teaches assigning the user as a signer of the agreement based on the information input and the authentication;
creating the agreement during the signing session, wherein the agreement includes the source document and a list of signers (see paragraph [0055], [0073] and [0074]). Alvord teaches generating the document during the communication session that includes the source document and the names/email addresses of the signers to be included in the session;
transmitting a URL comprising a link to a signing page that displays the agreement prior to a signature step (see paragraph [0055]). Alvord teaches transmitting a URL with a link to the document that contains the field in which the assignee is required to sign.
determining that the user has provided a signature for the agreement (see paragraph [0084]). Alvord teaches obtaining a signature for the agreements; and
Alvord fails to expressly disclose an encrypted signing session.
Gardenes Linan discloses:
wherein the live communication session comprises a video or an audio telecommunication session (see paragraph [0210]). Gardenes Linan teaches live communication with audio/video devices;
populating, by the agreement signing interface of the live communication session, a user identifier field of the agreement signing interface with a user identifier of the user of the communication (see paragraph [0194]). Gardenes Linan teaches displaying a selection/text input field indicating the identity of the user as the signer in the live communication;
initiating a signing session within the live communication session based on the selection input, wherein the signing session is initiated with the source document and the user as the signer of the agreement (see paragraph [0171], [0193] and [0194]). Gardenes Linan teaches initiating a signing session with live communication by identifying the users of the session along with the signer.
closing the signing session in response to the determination (see paragraph [0083]). Gardenes Linan teaches determining that the signature has been received, closing the communication between the users.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made by Alvord to include encrypted contract and closing communication session once the signature is received for the purpose of creating secure signing of contracts, as taught by Gardenes Linan.
Gardenes and Linan fails to expressly disclose a context token indicating a state of the agreement.
Griffin discloses:
transmitting a signing page that displays the agreement and a context token indicates a state of the agreement prior to a signature step (see column 6 lines 42-46 and column 16 lines 1-6). Griffin teaches displaying terms of agreement displayed on a smart phone and having an associated context token to monitor if the agreement has been met;
receiving a callback message from the user including the context token and an indication that the signature step has been performed (see column 16 lines 38-49). Griffin teaches receiving a message including a notification if the signature is received and valid.
determining that the user has provided a signature for the agreement based on the callback message and a current state of the signing message (see column 16 lines 49 – column 17 line 34 and column 18 lines 54-65). Griffin teaches determining that the signature is received and valid. The current state of the signing message is updated in the token.
comparing a state of the context token from the callback message to a signing session context corresponding to the state of the agreement prior to the signature step (see column 16 lines 49 – column 17 line 34 and column 18 lines 54-65). Griffin teaches determining that the signature is received and valid. The context is compared to the prior state and the current state of the signing message is updated in the token.
closing the signing session in response to the determination that the user has provided the signature and that the state of the context token conforms to the signing session context corresponding to the state of the agreement prior to the signature step (see column 6 lines 54-63). Griffin teaches closing the signing session based on a determining that the signature was provided and sig token is received confirms the signature was received and complete.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made by Alvord and Gardenes Linan to include a context token indicating the status of a signature signing session for the purpose of creating secure digital signatures in contracts, as taught by Griffin.
Alvord, Gardenes Linan and Griffin fail to expressly disclose a hyperlink and a context token for the signing agreement.
Theunis discloses:
transmitting a URL comprising a link and a context token, wherein the link refers to a signing page that displays the agreement and the context token (see paragraph [0072]). Theunis teaches the token may relate to and/or may be a hyperlink, preferably a unique hyperlink generated together with said video contract signing invitation, comprising token-related portions. Also visiting said hyperlink may initiate and/or contribute to the signing of the video contract. In yet another embodiment, the token may relate to and/or may be a one-dimension barcode or a two-dimensional barcode such as a QR code received on the second device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made by Alvord, Gardenes Linan and Griffin to include a hyperlink that displays the signing agreement and a token for the purpose of creating more intuitive electronic signing agreements, being user friendly and efficiently transmitting signing agreements, as taught by Theunis.
Claim 2:
Alvord discloses:
displaying a document template list in the agreement signing interface of the live communication session, wherein the source document is identified based on the document template list (see paragraph [0061]). Alvord teaches displaying a document template list where the source document can be generated based on the template.
Claim 3:
Alvord discloses:
the document template list comprises a representation of the source document (see paragraphs [0096] and [0097]). Alvord teaches the document template is a representation of the source document.
Claim 4:
Alvord discloses:
selecting the agreement for signing based on the representation of the source document (see paragraph [0097]). Alvord teaches selecting the “choice of law” template based on the representation.
Claim 5:
Alvord discloses:
authenticating the user based on a user identifier (see paragraphs [0054] and [0093]). Alvord teaches authenticating the user based on the identifier ; and
including the user identifier in a user identifier field of the agreement signing interface in response to the authentication (see paragraph [0054]). Alvord teaches an identifier identifying different persons and then programmatically flagging (e.g., a TRUE value) the ID, which is indicative that the person is assigned to populate the field.
Claim 6:
Alvord discloses:
determining that the user is not authenticated; and displaying a request to provide a user identifier for the user in the agreement signing interface (see paragraph [0054]). Alvord teaches determining that the user is not authenticated yet. Assigning includes (or is supplemented by) transmitting, over the network(s) 110, a notification to a device associated with the flagged ID so that the assignee is aware and able to populate the corresponding field.
Claim 9:
Alvord discloses:
generating the signing session context for the signing session, wherein the signed agreement is based on the signing session context (see paragraphs [0095]-[0097]). Alvord teaches generating a signing session context based on the types of document. Alvord teaches a law document signing session.
Claim 10:
Alvord discloses:
displaying an indication in the user interface of the live communication session that the signed agreement includes the signature (see paragraph [0090] and [0091]). Alvord teaches displaying an indication during the session that the user signed the document.
Claims 11-15:
Although Claims 11-15 are system claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the method of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, respectively.
Claims 16-20:
Although Claims 16-20 are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the method of Claims 1-4, 7, respectively.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvord, in view of GARDENES LINAN, Griffin, and Theunis, in further view of Daos et al., United States Patent Publication 2009/01288559 (hereinafter “Daos”).
Claim 7:
Alvord discloses:
displaying a summary of the signing session within the agreement signing interface based on the selection of the user as the signer of the source document, wherein the summary includes a user identifier and a representation of the source document (see paragraph [0037]). Alvord teaches viewing the track changes once the document is finalized which will show all changes made to the document based on the signers of the document, which can be equivalent to a summary including information.
Alvord, Gardenes, Griffin and Theunis fail to expressly disclose a thumbnail representation of the source document.
Daos discloses:
wherein the summary includes a thumbnail image representation of the source document (see paragraph [0067]). Daos teaches including a representation of the signature overlaid on the source document.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made by Alvord, Gardenes Linan, Griffin and Theunis to include a thumbnail image representation of the source document for the purpose of being user friendly by providing a summary of the results of the signing agreement, as taught by Daos.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 103
Applicant argues Alvord, Gardenes Linan, Griffin and Thuenis do not teach or suggest populating, by the agreement signing interface of the live communication session, a user identifier field of the agreement signing interface with a user identifier of the user of the live communication session in response to an authentication of the user into the live communication session using the user identifier as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner disagrees.
Alvord teaches receiving an indication that the user has selected a user interface element indicative of a request to add a collaborator, the user may input the name of the collaborator at the field 604 and that collaborator's email address at the field 606. Such collaboration authorization by a user to collaborate may engage a trust mechanism (e.g., KPI or device fingerprint verification) such that when the authorized user is authenticated, the user is brought to the document 214 (e.g., via establishing a communication session with a hosting web application) and granted READ and WRITE access right (see paragraph [0093]). Thus, Alvord teaches a field is populated based on the authentication. A users name is an identifier and if the users input remains in the field, then the field is populated based on authentication.
Gardenes Linan teaches the customer may input identification data into the received file , for example, through a form displayed on the screen of the customer system. This identification data may comprise e.g. customer's name, customer's tax identifier, customer's surname, customer's mail address. displaying a selection/text input field indicating the identity of the user as the signer in the live communication (see paragraph [0194]). Gardenes Linan further teaches the system may authenticate the identities simultaneously by comparing the data to the student registration database. The term “identification data” of a party may comprise entering the signatory's name and passport or national identity number. It may include the scanning and introduction of images of nationally recognized identity documents just showing them to a camera (e.g. a webcam). In an embodiment, the identification data may be a biometric identifier.
Biometric identifiers may be the distinctive, measurable physiological characteristics used to label and describe individuals. Biometrics may be captured with devices such as fingerprint readers, Iris scanners or voice analyzers. A physiological biometric would uniquely identify a person by his/her voice, DNA, hand print or behavior. Behavioral biometrics are related to the behavior of a person, including but not limited to: typing rhythm, gait, and voice. In an embodiment of the invention, one or more biometric identifiers may be used to authenticate one or more signatories. Multi-factor authentication may be used to authenticate one or more signatories, which requires that the user of a system provide more than one form of verification in order to prove their identity and allow access to the system by something a user knows such as a password, something the user has such as a smart card or a security token, and something the user is such as the use of biometrics (see paragraphs [0174]-[0177]. Thus, Gardenes Linan also teaches a user input and authentication. The fields are populated and authenticated.
Although, Alvord and Gardenes teach a user input then authentication, the functions remain the same such as populated identification information of the user based on authentication.
Griffin and Theunis is not used to teach the argued limitation.
Applicant argues The Office Action does not include sufficient evidence that there is a motivation to combine Alvord, Gardeñes Liñan, Griffin, and Theunis to teach claim 1.
The Examiner disagrees.
Griffin teaches as a form of pre-authorization, the BBE-Sig token is placed into a smart contract (e.g., remote procedure call) that monitors the terms and performance of the agreement and the BBE-Sig token is provided to the relying party as acceptance transfer if the agreement is met. the BBE-Sig token is wrapped in executable code, or within reach of, or access by some code. When the agreement conditions are met, the BBE-Sig is transmitted to someone, some entity, or some location. Further, the BBE-Sig token preauthorization and acceptance transfer system can generate one or more smart contracts associated with the service or good to be provided to the signing party by the supplier. The smart contract includes the terms of the agreement, and the biometric-based electronic signature token, the biometric-based electronic signature token providing biometric-based pre-authorization by the signing party of a payment to be initiated by the smart contract in response to detecting performance of at least one of the terms of the agreement (see column 6 lines 42 – column 7 lines 7).
Thuenis teaches the token may relate to and/or may be a hyperlink, preferably a unique hyperlink generated together with said video contract signing invitation, comprising token-related portions, whereby visiting said hyperlink may initiate and/or contribute to the signing of the video contract. In yet another embodiment, the token may relate to and/or may be a one-dimension barcode or a two-dimensional barcode such as a QR code received on the second device (see paragraph [0072]).
There is motivation to combine the prior arts because using Thuenis’s hyperlink that is generated together with an invitation to a Griffin’s signing session having token related portions. The fields and signatures can be the Griffins token related portions monitoring the performance of the signing contract. It would advantageous to package the Thuenis hyperlink with Griffins tokenized contract for the purpose of being user friendly and efficiently packaged in one transmission.
Applicant argues Dependent claims 7, 15, and 20 are allowable by virtue of depending from allowable claims 1, 11, and 16, respectively.
Applicant argues Daos is silent on at least populating, by the agreement signing interface of the live communication session, a user identifier field of the agreement signing interface with a user identifier of the user of the live communication session in response to an authentication of the user into the live communication session using the user identifier, and the Office Action does not
indicate otherwise.
The Examiner agrees and Daos is not used in teaching the argued limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIONNA M BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-7259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
/TIONNA M BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 1/26/26
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178