DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed by Applicant on 9/9/2025.
EXAMINER NOTE: The version of the claims filed on 9/9/2025 does not comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.121 with respect to incorrect markings of the claims language to show changes. Specifically, claim 1 subsection ‘f’ includes changes to significant words of the claim, which are not properly indicated as changed from the previous version of the claims. The Examiner enters the version of the claims filed on 9/9/2025 as filed and has examined this version accordingly. However, Applicant should review MPEP § 714 and 37 C.F.R. 1.121 and 1.52 for requirements in amending applications. Future non-compliance will result in the issuance of a Notice of Non-compliant Amendment.
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 Amendment
Applicant presents amendments to claims 1 and 3. All amendments have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome all of the previous objections to the claims. The objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 3 are sufficient to overcome many, but not all, of the previous indefinite rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The remaining issues are presented below.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 3 provide significant clarity to the claim allowing the Examiner to conduct a more appropriate search of the prior art. Despite the remaining indefinite issues outstanding, the Examiner determined that the amendments overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 and the Examiner is unable to provide a reasonable grounds for rejection based upon the current state of the claims. The Examiner cautions Applicant that further amendments to overcome the indefinite rejections have a potential to change the scope of the invention such that an additional search could be required and, depending on the search, an obviousness rejection may be necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1–3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “…d. verifying the electronic signature to a qualified signature validation server (QVal)…”, which is unclear. The Examiner does not understand what it means to verify the electronic signature to a qualified signature validation server. Further, this leads to the indefiniteness of the subsequently recited, “… a verification of the user file has had as a result that the electronic signatures contained in the file are valid or not and the number of signatures contained in the file… .” Further, it follows that the lack of clarity in the “verifying…to a qualified signature validation server (QVal)”, makes the subsequent “…i. the result of the qualified signature validation server (QVal)…” unclear as to what the result would be.
Claim 1 recites, “…g. adding to the electronic file: … ii. the digitally signed electronic file which electronic signature was to be verified…”, which is unclear what is being added to the electronic file. The Examiner is unclear as to what it means to add “the digitally signed electronic file which electronic signature was to be verified” “to the electronic file”.
Claim 1 recites, “…i. adding a time stamp to the digitally signed electronic file resulting from the previous step”, which is not clear what the boundaries are of “from the previous step.”
Claim 2 recites, “…whether it is valid or not, whether it is expired or not, whether it is invalidated or not, if it is repealed or not, or if it is in any of the possible states of the signature…”, which is indefinite. It is not possible to determine exactly what the multiple instances of the definite pronoun “it” refers to. Does “it” refer to the recited “status” or “the signatures”, or something else? Applicant is required to clarify the limitations.
Claim 2 recites, “…the data of the signatory, the signature provider and any data they contain that may be of interest…”, which lacks antecedent basis with respect to “the signatory” and “the signature provider”. Further, it cannot be determined what the recited “they” is referring to, nor is it possible to establish a definite interpretation of “any data they contain that may be of interest.”
Due to dependency, claims 2–3 inherit the indefiniteness of the independent claim.
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 VANCE LITTLE whose telephone number is (571)270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. 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.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights