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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-4, 8-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-4 and 8-10 recite a method and Claims 11-14 and 18-20 recite an electronic computing device and therefore fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
The claims as a whole recites a method, and an electronic computing device for covering concepts for a manner of tailoring a document for review, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts for Certain Methods of Organizing Activity. Further the claims as a whole recite a manner of converting a document from a source format to HTML format and organizing the HTML formatted document, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in Mental Processes.
The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
(Claim 1) A method for presenting a geolocation-specific tailored document, the method comprising: (Claim 11) [A computer system for presenting a geolocation-specific tailored document, comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer readable storage media encoding instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the computer system to:]
converting the document from a source format to a hypertext markup language format;
using a first determined geolocation of a first mobile electronic computing device to ascertain a state or local jurisdiction in which a first co-borrower is located;
organizing the hypertext markup language format of the document into a plurality of sections, wherein the plurality of sections includes at least one section selected from the group consisting of: a section on payments and interest, a section containing a Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statement, a section describing terms and conditions, and a section for signatures and confirmations;
omitting or condensing specific sections of a document that pertain to states or local jurisdictions other than the one in which the first co-borrower is located to establish a first geolocation-specific content, compliant with local and state laws of the first co-borrower;
highlighting financial information in the hypertext markup language format of the document [using hypertext markup language formatting], wherein the financial information comprises at least one of an interest rate, a finance charge, or a term, and wherein the highlighting comprises at least one of: bolding the financial information, increasing a font size of the financial information, shading the financial information, changing a color of the financial information, or enclosing the financial information in a box;
[displaying first content tailored for a viewing by the first co-borrower based on both a user interface size of the first mobile electronic computing device and the first geolocation-specific content, wherein the first geolocation-specific content excludes portions not applicable to the first determined geolocation of the first co-borrower]; using a second determined geolocation of a second mobile electronic computing device to ascertain a state or local jurisdiction in which a second co-borrower is located; omitting or condensing specific sections of the document that pertain to states or local jurisdictions other than the one in which the second co-borrower is located to establish a second geolocation-specific content, compliant with local and state laws of the second co-borrower; [and displaying second content tailored for a viewing by the second co-borrower based on both a user interface size of the second mobile electronic computing device and the second geolocation-specific content, wherein the second geolocation-specific content excludes portions not applicable to the second determined geolocation of the second co-borrower]. Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea.
Here the claims recite concepts covering managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application the claims recite concepts for tailoring a document for review (See paragraphs 1-3). Further the claims recite concepts capable of being performed in the human mind or via pen or paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts covering a manner of converting a document from a source format to HTML format and organizing the HTML formatted document.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (following rules or instructions), it falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04. Further if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in the human mind or via pen and paper it falls under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. See Id.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The Examiner views the following as the additional elements:
A computer system. (See paragraph 30 and 84 of the Specification)
One or more processors. (See paragraph 84 of the Specification)
Non-transitory computer readable media. (See paragraphs 85-86 of the Specification)
Instructions. (See paragraphs 86 and 88)
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they act to merely “apply” the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Regarding “displaying first content tailored for a viewing by the first co-borrower based on both a user interface size of the first mobile electronic computing device and the first geolocation-specific content, wherein the first geolocation-specific content excludes portions not applicable to the first determined geolocation of the first co-borrower” and “and displaying second content tailored for a viewing by the second co-borrower based on both a user interface size of the second mobile electronic computing device and the second geolocation-specific content, wherein the second geolocation-specific content excludes portions not applicable to the second determined geolocation of the second co-borrower”, the examiner views these limitations as results oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this limitation is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and paragraph 21 of the Specification)
The combination of these additional elements and/or results oriented steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)) Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method and system that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 10, 12-14, and 20 further define the abstract idea as identified and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claims 2-4, 10, 12-14, and 20 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 recite the additional elements of mobile electronic computing device (See paragraph 31), a smartphone (See paragraph 21) and the results oriented step of “ optimizing the display and interaction of the geolocation-specific tailored document for the smartphone's user interface size and capabilities” (See paragraphs 21 and 61) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the except-ion using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claims 8 and 18 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 9 and 19 recite the additional elements of adaptive display features and a smartphone (See paragraph 21) and the results oriented step of “to further optimize presentation of the geolocation-specific tailored document in accordance with the smartphone's screen size, resolution, and user interface guidelines” (See paragraphs 21 and 61) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claims 9 and 19 are considered to be patent ineligible.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon et al. (US 20180241569) in view of Gagne-Langevin et al. (US 20170116179), Brown et al. (US 20040139327), Manohar et al. (US Patent No. 10,095,677), and Hickl et al. (US Patent No. 7,383,498).
Referring to claims 1 and 11,
The Examiner finds, the particular types of sections included is non-functional descriptive material that does not alter the organizing the hypertext markup language format of the document into a plurality of sections. Therefore, the specific types of sections included does not patentably distinguish the claim over the prior art. The particular types of sections included is not related to the function of organizing the hypertext markup language format of the document into a plurality of sections. The particular types of sections included is non-functional descriptive material that may not be relied upon for patentability. The Examiner notes that non -functional descriptive material cannot render patentable an invention that is otherwise not patentable over the prior art. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability); and (BPAI 2008) (precedential) ("[T]he nature of the information being manipulated does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process."). Although no claim limitations will be disregarded and the claimed invention as a whole will be assess, the Examiner will follow the Federal Circuit's guidance as in the Gulack decision and will not give patentable weight to printed matter absent a "new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." Id. at 1386; see also King Pharm. Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279-80 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (applying the "printed matter" reasoning to method claims containing an "informing" step that could be either printed or verbal instructions).
There is no objective evidence of record that there is a functional relationship in the particular types of sections included and the function of organizing the hypertext markup language format of the document into a plurality of sections. Applicant does not recite or show how the particular types of sections included affects the function of organizing the hypertext markup language format of the document into a plurality of sections. The manner of organizing the hypertext markup language format of the document into a plurality of sections would be performed in the same manner regardless of the particular types of sections included. As such, the specific types of sections included indicates constitutes non-functional descriptive that may not be relied upon for patentability. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Exparte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative), afj'd 191 Fed. App'x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (When a prior art reference describes each and every feature of a claimed [invention], except for the claimed non-functional descriptive material..., it anticipates the claimed onscreen icon inasmuch as "the [non-functional] descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability[.]"). The examiner is interpreting for examination purposes that the claims require organizing the hypertext markup language format of the document into a plurality of sections.
Harmon, which is directed to facilitating the signing of electronic documents, teaches (Claim 1)A method for presenting a geolocation-specific tailored document, the method comprising: (Claim 11) A computer system for presenting a geolocation-specific tailored document, comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer readable storage media encoding instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the computer system to: (Harmon paragraph 39 teaching in one example, the signer is federated at the sender server and is thus the signer's device is able to access the sender server directly. An image of the electronic document is provided directly from the sender server to the signer device. When the signer signs the electronic document and provides input for the electronic document, the signature and/or inputted information are sent directly to the sender server and stored with the electronic document on the sender server. In this way, the electronic document is stored on the sender server throughout the signing process. Harmon paragraph 41 teaching the second type of signer information that is controlled is information that is provided by the signer during the electronic document signing process to be included in the electronic document. For example, the electronic document may include a webpage with an image of the electronic document and hyper-text-markup-language (HTML) fields overlain on top of the image for the signer to provide information. The signer retrieves and completes the webpage on the device. The signer interacts with the fields to provide information such as the signer's name, address, credit card information, social security number, signature, etc. Harmon paragraph 44 teaching as used herein, the phrase “computing device” refers to any electronic component, machine, equipment, or system that can be instructed to carry out operations. Computing devices will typically, but not necessarily, include a processor that is communicatively coupled to a memory and that executes computer-executable program code and/or accesses information stored in memory or other storage. Examples of computing devices include, but are not limited to, desktop computers, laptop computers, server computers, tablets, telephones, mobile telephones, televisions, portable data assistant (PDA), e-readers, portable game units, smart watches, etc.)
using a first determined geolocation of a first mobile electronic computing device to ascertain a state or local jurisdiction in which a first co-borrower is located; (Harmon paragraphs 76-77 teaching a variety of techniques are used alone or in combination with one another to identify or estimate the geographic locations of the users. In one example, the geographic locations of the users are determined based on address information of the users in user profiles that are stored for the users by the signature service. In another example, the geographic locations of the users are determined by detecting the location of the users' devices used during the signing process. In another example, the users are prompted to provide input to identify their own geographic locations and/or to provide those of the other users involved in the signing process. The geographic locations of the users in the signing process can be determined at different points in the signing process. For example, geographic locations of the sender and one of the signers may be determined prior to sending the document for signature based on information in user profiles maintained by an electronic document service for these users. The geographic locations of other two signers may not be known when the document is sent for signature but may be determined at later points in time, for example, when the signers receive the electronic document for signature and provide input identifying their respective geographic locations.)
using a second determined geolocation of a second mobile electronic computing device to ascertain a state or local jurisdiction in which a second co-borrower is located; (Harmon paragraphs 76-77 teaching a variety of techniques are used alone or in combination with one another to identify or estimate the geographic locations of the users. In one example, the geographic locations of the users are determined based on address information of the users in user profiles that are stored for the users by the signature service. In another example, the geographic locations of the users are determined by detecting the location of the users' devices used during the signing process. In another example, the users are prompted to provide input to identify their own geographic locations and/or to provide those of the other users involved in the signing process. The geographic locations of the users in the signing process can be determined at different points in the signing process. For example, geographic locations of the sender and one of the signers may be determined prior to sending the document for signature based on information in user profiles maintained by an electronic document service for these users. The geographic locations of other two signers may not be known when the document is sent for signature but may be determined at later points in time, for example, when the signers receive the electronic document for signature and provide input identifying their respective geographic locations.)
Harmon does not teach or suggest converting the document from a source format to a hypertext markup language format; organizing the hypertext markup language format of the document into a plurality of sections, wherein the plurality of sections includes at least one section selected from the group consisting of: a section on payments and interest, a section containing a Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statement, a section describing terms and conditions, and a section for signatures and confirmations;
However, Gagne-Langevin, which is directed to parsing and handling of document contents for the purposes of editing, validation, and analysis, teaches
converting the document from a source format to a hypertext markup language format;
(Gagne-Langevin paragraph 73 teaching the document 20 is received by the server system 450 at 520. A determination is made whether the document requires conversion to a different format. In these examples, processing carried out by the processing server 454 is carried out on an HTML version of the document 20, and once processed, the document is provided in HTML format to the client system 110. Thus, when the document 20 is received, at 525 a determination is made whether the document requires conversion to HTML. Where HTML format is not used by the application executing at the client system 110—for instance, when a dedicated tool 184 uses a proprietary or other type of document format—then conversion to another type of format may be required. It should be noted that while the examples described here are described using HTML notation and format, the embodiments described herein need not be so limited; other document formats may be used in place of HTML. When conversion is required, the conversion is carried out 530 by the conversion service 456, which as noted above may be included as part of the server system 450. The conversion service may carry out any required OCR in order to present textual document content in text form. Suitable conversion services or modules will be known to those skilled in the art. An example of a Word document to HTML converter is the built-in function of Microsoft Word, and an example of PDF to HTML conversion is the BCL easyConverter SDK 4 Word/HTML converter, from BCL Technologies, San Jose, Calif
organizing the hypertext markup language format of the document into a plurality of sections, wherein the plurality of sections includes at least one section selected from the group consisting of: a section on payments and interest, a section containing a Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statement, a section describing terms and conditions, and a section for signatures and confirmations; (Gagne-Langevin paragraphs 74-75 teaching The HTML document, either provided by the client system 110 in this format, or converted from another format by the conversion service 456, is processed at 535 by the processing server 454 to normalize the formatting of the document and to identify certain prescribed elements in the document in accordance with a corresponding framework identified for the document. A framework includes, in these examples, optional templates 464, rule sets 466, and validation criteria 468 defined in advance for the document. A “prescribed element” is contained within one or more content portions of a document. As will be appreciated from the discussion below, a “content portion” of a document is an atomic element or unit of content within the document. Each content portion may be identified by pattern or structural feature. Examples of identification by pattern include defining a content portion as the content filling a single page of the original document, if converted from a paginated document; and defining a content portion as each portion of the document consisting of a title or heading-like content followed by one or multiple contiguous content elements sharing common attributes, such as a heading and its following paragraphs up to the next heading. Examples of identification by structural feature include defining each content portion as the content of a single <div> element in an HTML document, or those <div> elements that have a particular parent-child relationship with other <div> elements; and defining each content portion as a single atomic HTML element or other atomic structural or programmatic element of the document, such as a heading, paragraph, image, and the like. A “prescribed” element or other element of the document, in this context, is not necessarily a structural element (like an HTML element), but rather comprises a unit of substantive content within the document or that is intended for inclusion in the document. Such units of substantive content may be defined by subject or theme; for instance, a unit may include one or more headings, paragraphs, tables, images, and/or footnotes or other references pertaining to a particular category or subcategory of information. Substantive content need not be literary in nature; it may include one or more sets of data, charts, images, and graphs (for example, as may be presented in a technical, scientific, or environmental report). A prescribed element comprises a unit predefined for a document type. For example, a particular type of document may be expected to include information about a particular subject, or a table contain certain data, and thus that information would form part or all of a prescribed element. A prescribed element may contain sub-elements; for instance, a complete prescribed element may include a particular title or heading, together with a table or paragraph of content. Gagne -Langevin paragraph 94 teaching FIG. 11 illustrates a schematic of a document 1000 having prescribed elements identified, without insertion of code for task user interface elements. In this example document, there are multiple prescribed or non-prescribed elements 1010, 1020, 1030, 1040, 1050, comprising one or more content portions; elements 1020, 1030, and 1040 contain sub-elements. Element 1010 comprises content 1012 that may be a top-level title or heading for the document 1000, and in this example is a non-prescribed element; its presence is not required by the framework for the document type. Element 1020 comprises three content portions 1022, 1024, 1026, where content portion 1022 may be a heading and portions 1024, 1026 are paragraphs. Element 1030 comprises three content portions as well, 1032, 1034, 1036, where 1034 comprises a table or other data presented in tabular format (whether formatted in an HTML table or other tabular arrangement), and 1036 contains footnotes referencing the content of the table 1034. Element 1040 comprises a heading content portion 1042 and a paragraph content portion 1044. Finally, element 1050 comprises only a table 1052.)
It would have been obvious to modify the manner of acquiring signatures as part of a signing process as taught in Harmon to incorporate converting the document from a source format to a hypertext markup language format; organizing the hypertext markup language format of the document into a plurality of sections, wherein the plurality of sections includes at least one section selected from the group consisting of: a section on payments and interest, a section containing a Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statement, a section describing terms and conditions, and a section for signatures and confirmations; as taught by the Gagne-Langevin with the motivation of facilitating the conversion to permit analysis and editing of the document in a secondary format, for example HTML. (Gagne-Langevin paragraphs 3, 44, and 74)
Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin does not teach or suggest omitting or condensing specific sections of the document that pertain to states or local jurisdictions other than the one in which the first co-borrower is located to establish a first geolocation-specific content, compliant with local and state laws of the first co-borrower; omitting or condensing specific sections of the document that pertain to states or local jurisdictions other than the one in which the second co-borrower is located to establish a second geolocation-specific content, compliant with local and state laws of the second co-borrower;
However, Brown, which is directed to digitally signing an electronic document, teaches
omitting or condensing specific sections of the document that pertain to states or local jurisdictions other than the one in which the first co-borrower is located to establish a first geolocation-specific content, compliant with local and state laws of the first co-borrower; (Brown paragraph 93 teaching the ability to restrict the viewing and/or modification of particular portions of a document 102 is advantageous in many contexts. For example, an electronically-filed court document might include portions that are sealed by a court order. Nevertheless, the unsealed portions should still be available to be viewed by the public. Likewise, certain agreements include portions that are not relevant, and thus should not be viewed or modified, by a particular signer. Thus, in one embodiment, access restrictions may be placed on the document 102 in order to allow the signer to view and/or modify certain portions and not others. This is an advance over conventional systems in which a digitally-signed word processing or PDF-encoded document must be displayed to the signer in its entirety or not at all. Brown paragraphs 138-140 teaching in one embodiment, the document signing instruction specifies the role and/or identity of a person to sign the document 102, which is received by the signing service 702 in step 302 of FIG. 3. For example, a document signing instruction has the following format in one embodiment: <Step id=2>Sign Document<PersInfo Role=“Judge”></Step> The foregoing instruction directs the signing service 702 to obtain the digital signature 118 of a person in the role of “Judge”. It should be recognized, however, that a variety of instruction formats could be used within the scope of the invention. Brown paragraph 143 teaching the document creation service 704 is desirable in many applications and contexts. For example, the document 102 illustrated in Appendix B is an “information”, which used in some jurisdictions to charge a person with a crime. After the judge signs the information, a document creation instruction within the document 102 may initiate the creation of an “arrest warrant”, with all of the relevant details from the information being copied into the arrest warrant. Like the information, the new arrest warrant preferably includes a set of processing instructions 606 for directing the processing of the warrant within the system 500. Brown paragraph 147 teaching after the document type is received, the method continues by retrieving 834 the corresponding document template from the storage device 204 or other storage location and generating 836 a new document 102 from the document template. In one embodiment, the generation process may simply involve making a copy of the template. Alternatively, the generation process may additionally include adding a variety of elements to the template, including tags, time and date stamps, formatting instructions, digital signatures, and the like. See Appendix A in Brown paragraph 191 illustrating different elements included in the XML document type definition including an address, city, state, and zip. See Appendix B in Brown paragraph 192 of an XML encoded document that uses the including the address, city, state, and zip for the population of the document.)
omitting or condensing specific sections of the document that pertain to states or local jurisdictions other than the one in which the second co-borrower is located to establish a second geolocation-specific content, compliant with local and state laws of the second co-borrower; (Brown paragraph 93 teaching the ability to restrict the viewing and/or modification of particular portions of a document 102 is advantageous in many contexts. For example, an electronically-filed court document might include portions that are sealed by a court order. Nevertheless, the unsealed portions should still be available to be viewed by the public. Likewise, certain agreements include portions that are not relevant, and thus should not be viewed or modified, by a particular signer. Thus, in one embodiment, access restrictions may be placed on the document 102 in order to allow the signer to view and/or modify certain portions and not others. This is an advance over conventional systems in which a digitally-signed word processing or PDF-encoded document must be displayed to the signer in its entirety or not at all. Brown paragraphs 138-140 teaching in one embodiment, the document signing instruction specifies the role and/or identity of a person to sign the document 102, which is received by the signing service 702 in step 302 of FIG. 3. For example, a document signing instruction has the following format in one embodiment: <Step id=2>Sign Document<PersInfo Role=“Judge”></Step> The foregoing instruction directs the signing service 702 to obtain the digital signature 118 of a person in the role of “Judge”. It should be recognized, however, that a variety of instruction formats could be used within the scope of the invention. Brown paragraph 143 teaching the document creation service 704 is desirable in many applications and contexts. For example, the document 102 illustrated in Appendix B is an “information”, which used in some jurisdictions to charge a person with a crime. After the judge signs the information, a document creation instruction within the document 102 may initiate the creation of an “arrest warrant”, with all of the relevant details from the information being copied into the arrest warrant. Like the information, the new arrest warrant preferably includes a set of processing instructions 606 for directing the processing of the warrant within the system 500. Brown paragraph 147 teaching after the document type is received, the method continues by retrieving 834 the corresponding document template from the storage device 204 or other storage location and generating 836 a new document 102 from the document template. In one embodiment, the generation process may simply involve making a copy of the template. Alternatively, the generation process may additionally include adding a variety of elements to the template, including tags, time and date stamps, formatting instructions, digital signatures, and the like. See Appendix A in Brown paragraph 191 illustrating different elements included in the XML document type definition including an address, city, state, and zip. See Appendix B in Brown paragraph 192 of an XML encoded document that uses the including the address, city, state, and zip for the population of the document.)
It would have been obvious to modify the manner of acquiring signatures as part of a signing process as taught in Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin to incorporate omitting or condensing specific sections of the document that pertain to states or local jurisdictions other than the one in which the first co-borrower is located to establish a first geolocation-specific content, compliant with local and state laws of the first co-borrower; omitting or condensing specific sections of the document that pertain to states or local jurisdictions other than the one in which the second co-borrower is located to establish a second geolocation-specific content, compliant with local and state laws of the second co-borrower; as taught in Brown with the motivation of masking information not relevant to the individual (i.e. laws applicable in other jurisdictions). (Brown paragraph 97)
Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin does not teach or suggest displaying first content tailored for a viewing by the first co-borrower based on both a user interface size of the first mobile electronic computing device and the first geolocation-specific content, wherein the first geolocation-specific content excludes portions not applicable to the first determined geolocation of the first co-borrower and displaying second content tailored for a viewing by the second co-borrower based on both a user interface size of the second mobile electronic computing device and the second geolocation-specific content, wherein the second geolocation-specific content excludes portions not applicable to the second determined geolocation of the second co-borrower.
However, the combination of Brown and Manohar, which is directed to detecting the layout of a document teaches the following:
Brown teaches:
displaying first content tailored for a viewing by the first co-borrower based the first geolocation-specific content, wherein the first geolocation-specific content excludes portions not applicable to the first determined geolocation of the first co-borrower; (Brown paragraph 93 teaching the ability to restrict the viewing and/or modification of particular portions of a document 102 is advantageous in many contexts. For example, an electronically-filed court document might include portions that are sealed by a court order. Nevertheless, the unsealed portions should still be available to be viewed by the public. Likewise, certain agreements include portions that are not relevant, and thus should not be viewed or modified, by a particular signer. Thus, in one embodiment, access restrictions may be placed on the document 102 in order to allow the signer to view and/or modify certain portions and not others. This is an advance over conventional systems in which a digitally-signed word processing or PDF-encoded document must be displayed to the signer in its entirety or not at all. Brown paragraphs 138-140 teaching in one embodiment, the document signing instruction specifies the role and/or identity of a person to sign the document 102, which is received by the signing service 702 in step 302 of FIG. 3. For example, a document signing instruction has the following format in one embodiment: <Step id=2>Sign Document<PersInfo Role=“Judge”></Step> The foregoing instruction directs the signing service 702 to obtain the digital signature 118 of a person in the role of “Judge”. It should be recognized, however, that a variety of instruction formats could be used within the scope of the invention. Brown paragraph 143 teaching the document creation service 704 is desirable in many applications and contexts. For example, the document 102 illustrated in Appendix B is an “information”, which used in some jurisdictions to charge a person with a crime. After the judge signs the information, a document creation instruction within the document 102 may initiate the creation of an “arrest warrant”, with all of the relevant details from the information being copied into the arrest warrant. Like the information, the new arrest warrant preferably includes a set of processing instructions 606 for directing the processing of the warrant within the system 500. Brown paragraph 147 teaching after the document type is received, the method continues by retrieving 834 the corresponding document template from the storage device 204 or other storage location and generating 836 a new document 102 from the document template. In one embodiment, the generation process may simply involve making a copy of the template. Alternatively, the generation process may additionally include adding a variety of elements to the template, including tags, time and date stamps, formatting instructions, digital signatures, and the like. See Appendix A in Brown paragraph 191 illustrating different elements included in the XML document type definition including an address, city, state, and zip. See Appendix B in Brown paragraph 192 of an XML encoded document that uses the including the address, city, state, and zip for the population of the document.)
and displaying second content tailored for a viewing by the second co-borrower based on the second geolocation-specific content, wherein the second geolocation-specific content excludes portions not applicable to the second determined geolocation of the second co-borrower. (Brown paragraph 93 teaching the ability to restrict the viewing and/or modification of particular portions of a document 102 is advantageous in many contexts. For example, an electronically-filed court document might include portions that are sealed by a court order. Nevertheless, the unsealed portions should still be available to be viewed by the public. Likewise, certain agreements include portions that are not relevant, and thus should not be viewed or modified, by a particular signer. Thus, in one embodiment, access restrictions may be placed on the document 102 in order to allow the signer to view and/or modify certain portions and not others. This is an advance over conventional systems in which a digitally-signed word processing or PDF-encoded document must be displayed to the signer in its entirety or not at all. Brown paragraphs 138-140 teaching in one embodiment, the document signing instruction specifies the role and/or identity of a person to sign the document 102, which is received by the signing service 702 in step 302 of FIG. 3. For example, a document signing instruction has the following format in one embodiment: <Step id=2>Sign Document<PersInfo Role=“Judge”></Step> The foregoing instruction directs the signing service 702 to obtain the digital signature 118 of a person in the role of “Judge”. It should be recognized, however, that a variety of instruction formats could be used within the scope of the invention. Brown paragraph 143 teaching the document creation service 704 is desirable in many applications and contexts. For example, the document 102 illustrated in Appendix B is an “information”, which used in some jurisdictions to charge a person with a crime. After the judge signs the information, a document creation instruction within the document 102 may initiate the creation of an “arrest warrant”, with all of the relevant details from the information being copied into the arrest warrant. Like the information, the new arrest warrant preferably includes a set of processing instructions 606 for directing the processing of the warrant within the system 500. Brown paragraph 147 teaching after the document type is received, the method continues by retrieving 834 the corresponding document template from the storage device 204 or other storage location and generating 836 a new document 102 from the document template. In one embodiment, the generation process may simply involve making a copy of the template. Alternatively, the generation process may additionally include adding a variety of elements to the template, including tags, time and date stamps, formatting instructions, digital signatures, and the like. See Appendix A in Brown paragraph 191 illustrating different elements included in the XML document type definition including an address, city, state, and zip. See Appendix B in Brown paragraph 192 of an XML encoded document that uses the including the address, city, state, and zip for the population of the document.)
Brown teaches the concept of displaying a first/second content tailored for a viewing by the first/second co-borrower based on multiple criteria including a first/second geolocation-specific content that excludes portions not applicable to the first/second determined geolocation of the second co-borrower.
Further, Manohar, teaches displaying first/second content tailored for a viewing based on a user interface size of the first/second mobile electronic device. (Manohar column 2 lines 15-30 teaching this disclosure is directed to techniques and systems to detect a layout of an electronic document. The techniques and systems enable an accurate reproduction (e.g., preserving the design intent of the content creator) of electronic documents across a variety of viewing devices due to the ability to adapt the detected layout to different viewing device. By detecting a source layout(s) of the electronic document, the original design intent of the content creator in terms of an arrangement and style of content within the electronic document may be preserved, or at least be preserved more than previous approaches allowed, when adapting or otherwise changing the source layout to accommodate different viewing devices (e.g., different input components, display screen sizes, display screen resolutions, etc.). As a result, a user's reading experience across a variety of viewing devices may be enhanced. Manohar column 3 lines 40-67 teaching in some embodiments, the source documents 110 may include books (e.g., textbooks, cookbooks, etc.), magazines, newspapers, newsletters, manuals, guides, references, articles, reports, documents, or any other suitable paginated document. Moreover, the source documents 110 may include fixed or reflowable content. Fixed content, or fixed format content, is meant to encompass a source document 110 having content laid out in a fixed manner on each page of the source document 110, meaning that the content on each page is of a predefined size in predefined locations. In this scenario, the content creator (e.g., author) and/or publisher may specify the layout and style of the source document 110 in terms of how it should look when printed. For example, characteristics such as the font type, color of text, as well as the arrangement of content on a page may be specified through the use of style guides and grids used as guidelines for publishing purposes of the original content. Such style guides are invisible to the end-user/reader. The content on the page(s) of the source documents 110 may include text, images (e.g., photographs, drawings, etc.), tables, charts, graphs, captions, and the like. In scenarios where the source documents 110 are created electronically (as opposed to electronic documents that have been scanned-in from a physical copy), the content may further include interactive and/or dynamic elements such as graphics, video, interactive text (e.g., hyperlinks), and the like. It is to be appreciated that the source documents 110 may comprise a single page or multiple (e.g., hundreds) of pages. Manohar column 4 lines 1-24 teaching in some embodiments, the document provider server 102 may transmit source documents 110 in digital form (i.e., electronic documents) to the document processing server 104 via the network 108. For example, the source document 110 may be a textbook created by an author(s), and the author, or another entity, may utilize suitable hardware (e.g., a document scanner) to scan the textbook so that it may be converted from a physical hardcopy to electronic form, such as portable document format (PDF) created by Adobe Systems®. In some embodiments, the source documents 110 may be transmitted in other suitable formats, including reflowable text formats such as hypertext markup language (HTML), electronic publication (EPUB), and the like. At least some of the content may be text-based content that may be stored, and recognized as, text through techniques such as optical character recognition (OCR), human designation, or by other known techniques.)
It would have been obvious to modify the manner of acquiring signatures as part of a signing process as taught in Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin to incorporate displaying first content tailored for a viewing by the first co-borrower based on both a user interface size of the first mobile electronic computing device and the first geolocation-specific content, wherein the first geolocation-specific content excludes portions not applicable to the first determined geolocation of the first co-borrower and displaying second content tailored for a viewing by the second co-borrower based on both a user interface size of the second mobile electronic computing device and the second geolocation-specific content, wherein the second geolocation-specific content excludes portions not applicable to the second determined geolocation of the second co-borrower as taught by the combination of Brown and Manohar with the motivation of facilitating the presentation of a document for review based on parameters associated with the reviewing user and device used for viewing. (Brown paragraphs 93 and 97 and Manohar column 2 lines 15-30)
Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin, Brown, Manohar does not teach or suggest highlighting financial information in the hypertext markup language format of the document [using hypertext markup language formatting], wherein the financial information comprises at least one of an interest rate, a finance charge, or a term, and wherein the highlighting comprises at least one of: bolding the financial information, increasing a font size of the financial information, shading the financial information, changing a color of the financial information, or enclosing the financial information in a box;
However, Hickl, which is directed to applying style changes to markup language documents teaches highlighting financial information in the hypertext markup language format of the document using hypertext markup language formatting, wherein the financial information comprises at least one of an interest rate, a finance charge, or a term, and wherein the highlighting comprises at least one of: bolding the financial information, increasing a font size of the financial information, shading the financial information, changing a color of the financial information, or enclosing the financial information in a box; (Hickl column 1 lines 10-32 teaching that markup language documents contain content interspersed with markup language or tags. The markup language may be used to structure and define the content as well as to format the content for display such as a boldfaced font. For example a HTML document may contain tags that organize the document’s content into sections as well as tags that cause content to be displayed in a certain manner. Style sheets may be used to assist in structuring and formatting HTML documents. Style sheets contain formatting descriptions that may be used to determine how certain elements or sections of a markup language document are to be displayed. For example the style sheet may specify the font or color. Hickl column 6 lines 2-5 teaching that for example, the color property can be set to green to indicate that certain text in certain elements of the a markup language document should be displayed in a green color. Hickl column 6 lines 27-36 teaching that selector in a cascading style sheet may be specified as an attribute class selector, and the formatting descriptions associated with the selector may be applied to the elements in a markup language document that have a class attribute set to a particular value. Attribute class selectors identify classes of elements to which to apply formatting properties.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signing process as taught in Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin, Brown, and Manohar to incorporate highlighting financial information in the hypertext markup language format of the document using hypertext markup language formatting, wherein the financial information comprises at least one of an interest rate, a finance charge, or a term, and wherein the highlighting comprises at least one of: bolding the financial information, increasing a font size of the financial information, shading the financial information, changing a color of the financial information, or enclosing the financial information in a box; as taught in Hickl with the motivation of stylesheet in conjunction with HTML tags in the HTML document to describe in more detail how the content in the document is to be displayed. (Hickl column 1 lines 30-33)
Referring to claims 2 and 12,
Harmon further teaches obtaining residence information for an individual who is required to sign the document, (Harmon paragraphs 76-77 teaching a variety of techniques are used alone or in combination with one another to identify or estimate the geographic locations of the users. In one example, the geographic locations of the users are determined based on address information of the users in user profiles that are stored for the users by the signature service. In another example, the geographic locations of the users are determined by detecting the location of the users' devices used during the signing process. In another example, the users are prompted to provide input to identify their own geographic locations and/or to provide those of the other users involved in the signing process. The geographic locations of the users in the signing process can be determined at different points in the signing process. For example, geographic locations of the sender and one of the signers may be determined prior to sending the document for signature based on information in user profiles maintained by an electronic document service for these users. The geographic locations of other two signers may not be known when the document is sent for signature but may be determined at later points in time, for example, when the signers receive the electronic document for signature and provide input identifying their respective geographic locations. Harmon paragraph 114 teaching detecting other changed circumstances can involve monitoring databases and third party information sources for changes, for example, to detect a change of a data storage requirement or a change of user information. In one example, a signer moves to a new residence in a new geographic location and the new residence address is detected in a profile of the account with an electronic document signature service. In another example, a government changes its data storage requirements to include or exclude one or more geographic locations as being compatible for storage of its residents' personal data. The change is detected by monitoring an electronic publication provided by the government. In another example, a server is taken offline for maintenance. The change is detected by monitoring the status of the server.
Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin, Manohar, and Hickl does not teach or suggest wherein the residence information is used to further tailor the document to a residence of the individual by hiding or condensing one or more portions of the document that pertain to laws in other jurisdictions.
However, Brown teaches wherein the residence information is used to further tailor the document to a residence of the individual by hiding or condensing one or more portions of the document that pertain to laws in other jurisdictions. (Brown paragraph 93 teaching the ability to restrict the viewing and/or modification of particular portions of a document 102 is advantageous in many contexts. For example, an electronically-filed court document might include portions that are sealed by a court order. Nevertheless, the unsealed portions should still be available to be viewed by the public. Likewise, certain agreements include portions that are not relevant, and thus should not be viewed or modified, by a particular signer. Thus, in one embodiment, access restrictions may be placed on the document 102 in order to allow the signer to view and/or modify certain portions and not others. This is an advance over conventional systems in which a digitally-signed word processing or PDF-encoded document must be displayed to the signer in its entirety or not at all. Brown paragraphs 138-140 teaching in one embodiment, the document signing instruction specifies the role and/or identity of a person to sign the document 102, which is received by the signing service 702 in step 302 of FIG. 3. For example, a document signing instruction has the following format in one embodiment: <Step id=2>Sign Document<PersInfo Role=“Judge”></Step> The foregoing instruction directs the signing service 702 to obtain the digital signature 118 of a person in the role of “Judge”. It should be recognized, however, that a variety of instruction formats could be used within the scope of the invention. Brown paragraph 143 teaching the document creation service 704 is desirable in many applications and contexts. For example, the document 102 illustrated in Appendix B is an “information”, which used in some jurisdictions to charge a person with a crime. After the judge signs the information, a document creation instruction within the document 102 may initiate the creation of an “arrest warrant”, with all of the relevant details from the information being copied into the arrest warrant. Like the information, the new arrest warrant preferably includes a set of processing instructions 606 for directing the processing of the warrant within the system 500. Brown paragraph 147 teaching after the document type is received, the method continues by retrieving 834 the corresponding document template from the storage device 204 or other storage location and generating 836 a new document 102 from the document template. In one embodiment, the generation process may simply involve making a copy of the template. Alternatively, the generation process may additionally include adding a variety of elements to the template, including tags, time and date stamps, formatting instructions, digital signatures, and the like. See Appendix A in Brown paragraph 191 illustrating different elements included in the XML document type definition including an address, city, state, and zip. See Appendix B in Brown paragraph 192 of an XML encoded document that uses the including the address, city, state, and zip for the population of the document.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signing process as taught in Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin, Manohar, and Hickl to incorporate tailoring the document to a residence for the individual, comprising hiding or condensing one or more portions of the document that pertain to laws in other jurisdictions as taught in Brown with the motivation of masking information not relevant to the individual (i.e. laws applicable in other jurisdictions). (Brown paragraph 97)
Referring to claims 3 and 13,
Brown further teaches wherein the one or more portions of the document that are omitted or condensed include another signature block for anyone other than the individual who is required to sign the document. (Brown paragraph 68 teaching coupled to the role identifier 104, the parser 106 parses the document 102 to identify the portion to be signed by the signer, i.e. the “to-be-signed” portion. In one embodiment, the parser 106 is an XML parser adapted to parse an XML-encoded document 102. As described in greater detail below, the parser 106 identifies within the document 102 a “to-be-signed” tag 116 or other delimiter for indicating a portion of the document 102 to be signed by the signer in the specified role or capacity. The document 102 may include a plurality of such tags 116 corresponding to the plurality of signers and roles. In addition, the parser 106 may be used to identify one or more “accessible-by” tags 120 within the document 120, as described in greater detail hereafter. Brown paragraph 94 teaching as described above, the document 102 may include one or more accessible-by tags 120 for indicating access restrictions to portions of the document 102. In an alternative embodiment, XML attributes are used for the same purpose. Like the to-be-signed tag 116, the accessible-by tag 120 comprises a beginning tag and an end tag, the text between the tags comprising the portion of the document 102 that is access restricted. Preferably, the parser 106 is used to identify the access-restricted portions of the document 102. Brown paragraph 97 teaching if, in step 312, it is determined that the document includes access restrictions, the method continues with step 314 by preventing unauthorized access to the access-restricted portions, such as by masking the display of, and/or preventing modifications to, those portions. For example, in one embodiment, the foreground color of textual portions that the signer is not entitled to view is set to the same color as the background. As a result, the signer will perceive a “blank” portion of the document 102 when it is displayed. In alternative embodiments, a graphical box or the like is superimposed over the access-restricted text, making the text unreadable. See also Brown Figure 3.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signing process as taught in Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin, Manohar, and Hickl to incorporate wherein the one or more portions of the document that are omitted or condensed include another signature block for anyone other than the individual who is required to sign the document as taught in Brown with the motivation of masking information not relevant to the individual (i.e. signature blocks related to other parties). (Brown paragraphs 68 and 97)
Referring to claims 8 and 18,
Harmon further teaches, wherein when the first mobile electronic computing device is specifically a smartphone, (Harmon paragraph 44 disclosing that computing devices refers to any electronic component, machine, equipment, or system that can carry out the invention. Computing devices typically include a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and that executes computer-executable program code and/or accesses information stored in memory or other storage. Computing devices include desktop computers, mobile telephones, PDAs, etc.)
Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin, Brown, and Hickl does not teach or suggest optimizing the display and interaction of the geolocation-specific tailored document for the smartphone's user interface size and capabilities.
However, Manohar, teaches optimizing the display and interaction of the geolocation-specific tailored document for the smartphone's user interface size and capabilities. (Manohar column 2 lines 15-30 teaching this disclosure is directed to techniques and systems to detect a layout of an electronic document. The techniques and systems enable an accurate reproduction (e.g., preserving the design intent of the content creator) of electronic documents across a variety of viewing devices due to the ability to adapt the detected layout to different viewing device. By detecting a source layout(s) of the electronic document, the original design intent of the content creator in terms of an arrangement and style of content within the electronic document may be preserved, or at least be preserved more than previous approaches allowed, when adapting or otherwise changing the source layout to accommodate different viewing devices (e.g., different input components, display screen sizes, display screen resolutions, etc.). As a result, a user's reading experience across a variety of viewing devices may be enhanced. Manohar column 3 lines 40-67 teaching in some embodiments, the source documents 110 may include books (e.g., textbooks, cookbooks, etc.), magazines, newspapers, newsletters, manuals, guides, references, articles, reports, documents, or any other suitable paginated document. Moreover, the source documents 110 may include fixed or reflowable content. Fixed content, or fixed format content, is meant to encompass a source document 110 having content laid out in a fixed manner on each page of the source document 110, meaning that the content on each page is of a predefined size in predefined locations. In this scenario, the content creator (e.g., author) and/or publisher may specify the layout and style of the source document 110 in terms of how it should look when printed. For example, characteristics such as the font type, color of text, as well as the arrangement of content on a page may be specified through the use of style guides and grids used as guidelines for publishing purposes of the original content. Such style guides are invisible to the end-user/reader. The content on the page(s) of the source documents 110 may include text, images (e.g., photographs, drawings, etc.), tables, charts, graphs, captions, and the like. In scenarios where the source documents 110 are created electronically (as opposed to electronic documents that have been scanned-in from a physical copy), the content may further include interactive and/or dynamic elements such as graphics, video, interactive text (e.g., hyperlinks), and the like. It is to be appreciated that the source documents 110 may comprise a single page or multiple (e.g., hundreds) of pages. Manohar column 4 lines 1-24 teaching in some embodiments, the document provider server 102 may transmit source documents 110 in digital form (i.e., electronic documents) to the document processing server 104 via the network 108. For example, the source document 110 may be a textbook created by an author(s), and the author, or another entity, may utilize suitable hardware (e.g., a document scanner) to scan the textbook so that it may be converted from a physical hardcopy to electronic form, such as portable document format (PDF) created by Adobe Systems®. In some embodiments, the source documents 110 may be transmitted in other suitable formats, including reflowable text formats such as hypertext markup language (HTML), electronic publication (EPUB), and the like. At least some of the content may be text-based content that may be stored, and recognized as, text through techniques such as optical character recognition (OCR), human designation, or by other known techniques.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signing process as taught in Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin, Brown, and Hickl to incorporate optimizing the display and interaction of the geolocation-specific tailored document for the smartphone's user interface size and capabilities as taught in Manohar with the motivation of facilitating the display and interaction of documents on various devices. (Manohar column 2 lines 15-30)
Referring to claims 9 and 19,
Manohar further teaches adaptive display features for the smartphone to further optimize presentation of the geolocation-specific tailored document in accordance with the smartphone's screen size. (Manohar column 2 lines 15-30 teaching this disclosure is directed to techniques and systems to detect a layout of an electronic document. The techniques and systems enable an accurate reproduction (e.g., preserving the design intent of the content creator) of electronic documents across a variety of viewing devices due to the ability to adapt the detected layout to different viewing device. By detecting a source layout(s) of the electronic document, the original design intent of the content creator in terms of an arrangement and style of content within the electronic document may be preserved, or at least be preserved more than previous approaches allowed, when adapting or otherwise changing the source layout to accommodate different viewing devices (e.g., different input components, display screen sizes, display screen resolutions, etc.). As a result, a user's reading experience across a variety of viewing devices may be enhanced. Manohar column 3 lines 40-67 teaching in some embodiments, the source documents 110 may include books (e.g., textbooks, cookbooks, etc.), magazines, newspapers, newsletters, manuals, guides, references, articles, reports, documents, or any other suitable paginated document. Moreover, the source documents 110 may include fixed or reflowable content. Fixed content, or fixed format content, is meant to encompass a source document 110 having content laid out in a fixed manner on each page of the source document 110, meaning that the content on each page is of a predefined size in predefined locations. In this scenario, the content creator (e.g., author) and/or publisher may specify the layout and style of the source document 110 in terms of how it should look when printed. For example, characteristics such as the font type, color of text, as well as the arrangement of content on a page may be specified through the use of style guides and grids used as guidelines for publishing purposes of the original content. Such style guides are invisible to the end-user/reader. The content on the page(s) of the source documents 110 may include text, images (e.g., photographs, drawings, etc.), tables, charts, graphs, captions, and the like. In scenarios where the source documents 110 are created electronically (as opposed to electronic documents that have been scanned-in from a physical copy), the content may further include interactive and/or dynamic elements such as graphics, video, interactive text (e.g., hyperlinks), and the like. It is to be appreciated that the source documents 110 may comprise a single page or multiple (e.g., hundreds) of pages. Manohar column 4 lines 1-24 teaching in some embodiments, the document provider server 102 may transmit source documents 110 in digital form (i.e., electronic documents) to the document processing server 104 via the network 108. For example, the source document 110 may be a textbook created by an author(s), and the author, or another entity, may utilize suitable hardware (e.g., a document scanner) to scan the textbook so that it may be converted from a physical hardcopy to electronic form, such as portable document format (PDF) created by Adobe Systems®. In some embodiments, the source documents 110 may be transmitted in other suitable formats, including reflowable text formats such as hypertext markup language (HTML), electronic publication (EPUB), and the like. At least some of the content may be text-based content that may be stored, and recognized as, text through techniques such as optical character recognition (OCR), human designation, or by other known techniques.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signing process as taught in Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin, Brown, and Hickl to incorporate adaptive display features for the smartphone to further optimize presentation of the geolocation-specific tailored document in accordance with the smartphone's screen size as taught in Manohar with the motivation of facilitating the display and interaction of documents on various devices. (Manohar column 2 lines 15-30)
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon et al. (US 20180241569) in view of Gagne-Langevin et al. (US 20170116179), Brown et al. (US 20040139327), Manohar et al. (US Patent No. 10,095,677), Hickl et al. (US Patent No. 7,383,498), and Kopp et al. (US 20100114995).
Referring to claims 4 and 14,
Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin, Brown and Manohar does not teach or suggest, further comprising identifying one or more statements in the document that are required to comply with federal or state laws and regulations.
However, Kopp, which is directed to remote web-based document creation, teaches, further comprising identifying one or more statements in the document that are required in the document to comply with federal or state laws and regulations. (Kopp paragraph 3 teaching other document systems use a conventional relational database scheme to test specific input information against a table of rule sets which, in turn, are directly linked to various boilerplate clauses. For example, when working with insurance forms, a rule set is assigned to each insurance policy clause and each endorsement clause. The insurance and endorsement clauses and rule sets are stored in a memory coupled to the main processor. Each rule set includes at least one rule that must be satisfied in order to include the associated clause in the document. After entering customer-specific parameters into the computer, such as desired insurance coverages and the policy holder's state of residence, each and every rule in each and every rule set is evaluated to determine whether a particular clause is to be included in the document. In order to print a document, a printer database containing a redundant copy of each insurance and endorsement policy clause is utilized to supply the appropriate clauses. Kopp paragraphs 21-22 teaching an auto dealer end-user may desire to perform various transactions. For example, the auto-dealer may desire to create a retail installment contract that a customer signs for transmittal to a bank in association with indirect lending related to an automobile purchase. In accordance with various embodiments, the auto dealer end-user inputs certain contract data, such as customer information required for the indirect lending related to an automobile purchase, at the remote system 16 which interfaces with the document generation system 5 via the Internet 20. Various checks on the inputted contract data/required data can be made at the remote system 16 and/or the document generation system 5, including for example, state-set-specific thresholds such as late fees, state usury caps, maximum fees, whether or not required data for completing the retail installment contract has been entered, etc. For example, if an auto dealer in Texas attempts to create a contract with a 21% annual percentage rate (APR) and the Texas state limit is an 18% APR, generation of the retail installment contract will be denied or “kicked back.” It should be noted that various embodiments can be configured to provide document generation and printing for various industries, applications, etc., such as for human resources purposes. The document generation system 5 may also be operable in a manual or automatic mode. In the manual mode, the auto dealer may select what particular documents related to the retail installment contract are to be generated and/or printed. In the automatic mode, the document generation system 5 is left to determine what particular documents are to be generated and/or printed. For example, a state-specific indirect lending deal “jacket” may include at least one or more of the following: the retail installment contract itself, a title and license plate application (MV1); a credit application, an “agreement to provide insurance” (ATPI); a buyer's order; a notice to co-signer; an odometer statement; a reference sheet; other transaction-related documents; and other state-specific documents. When the requisite documents are determined and the required contract data has been collected/entered at the remote system, the document generation system 5 can transmit, e.g., presentation copies/version of the documents, to the remote system for display and/or printing. A presentation format can include, e.g., pdf-formatted documents. Alternatively, the document generation system 5 can merge the above-described documents into a single “merged” pdf document for viewing and/or printing.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signing process as taught in Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin, Brown, Manohar, and Hickl to incorporate further comprising identifying one or more statements in the document that are required in the document to comply with federal or state laws and regulations as taught in Kopp with the motivation of validating documents are compliance with federal or state laws and regulations. (Kopp paragraph 24)
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon et al. (US 20180241569) in view of Gagne-Langevin et al. (US 20170116179), Brown et al. (US 20040139327), Manohar et al. (US Patent No. 10,095,677), Hickl et al. (US Patent No. 7,383,498), and Pochert et al. (US 20170011313)
Referring to claims 10 and 20,
Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin, Brown, Manohar, and Hickl teaches wherein the first and second geolocation-specific content is dynamically updated.
However, Pochert, which is directed to determining contract clauses, teaches wherein the first and second geolocation-specific content is dynamically updated. (Pochert paragraph 16 teaching by narrowing the possible contract clauses through a multi-stage process, the contract tool can determine and provide only those contract clauses that are relevant to a purchase order or sub-contract. By reducing the user interaction to only providing data about the contract and answering simple questions, a user can easily identify the appropriate contract clauses without learning the specifics of each clause. Additionally, because the contract tool automatically updates based on changes to the contract clauses, the contract tool can accurately provide the relevant contract clauses as governmental regulations change over time. Pochert paragraph 90 teaching according to aspects, the contract tool 104 can be configured to regularly update the rules 110 as the contract clauses change over time. FIG. 6 illustrates one example of a process 600 for updating the contract tool, according to aspects of the present disclosure. While FIG. 6 illustrates various stages that can be performed, stages can be removed and additional stages can be added. Likewise, the order of the illustrated stages can be performed in any order. Pochert paragraph 94 teaching in 608, the contract tool can update rules based on the changes to the contract clauses. For example, the contract tool 104 can compare the updates, determined during the parsing, to the rules 110. In some aspect, if the update differs from the one or more of the rules 110, the contract tool 104 can update the one or more rules 110. If the update is not included in the rules 110, the contract tool 104 can generate a new rule to be included in the rules 110.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signing process as taught in Harmon in view of Gagne-Langevin, Brown, Manohar and Hickl to incorporate wherein the first and second geolocation-specific content is dynamically updated as taught in Pochert with the motivation of updating the contract to reflect the current applicable law. (Pochert paragraphs 16 and 90)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 5, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on page 7 of the Remarks, regarding the claim objections the Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the claim objections.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on page 7 of the Remarks, regarding the 112 (a) rejection the Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the 112(a) rejection.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 7-12 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection the Examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are directed to computing technology that automatically modifies a document in a first format to a second format that can be customized for an individual, comply with federal and state regulations regarding, transparency and openness, and permit the individual to review, understand and sign the document on small devices to create a legally binding document. According to Applicant, this technology provides efficiencies in rendering documents on small devices and enables modifications of documents to highlight interest rates, finance charges, and disclaimers in compliance with federal and state laws and regulation. Applicant contends the limitations:
converting the document from a source format to a hypertext markup language format;
organizing the hypertext markup language format of the document into a plurality of sections, wherein the plurality of sections includes at least one section selected from the group consisting of: a section on payments and interest, a section containing a Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statement, a section describing terms and conditions, and a section for signatures and confirmations; highlighting financial information in the hypertext markup language format of the document using hypertext markup language formatting, wherein the financial information comprises at least one of an interest rate, a finance charge, or a term, and wherein the highlighting comprises at least one of: bolding the financial information, increasing a font size of the financial information, shading the financial information, changing a color of the financial information, or enclosing the financial information in a box;
According to Applicant, the claims overcome the 101 rejection by integrating the abstract idea into a practical application and reciting significantly more than the abstract idea by reciting specific technical implementations that improve computer functionality for mobile device document presentation and provide a technological solution to the technical problem of presenting complex financial documents on mobile devices while ensuring regulatory compliance.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing an individual can convert a document from a first format to HTML, and organizing the HTML document into sections given the breadth this is claimed at. The Examiner further views the highlighting of information as claimed in a part of the recited abstract idea as a step an individual would do as part of creating a document for signature. The Examiner views the purported efficiencies asserted by Applicant are from performing the abstract idea using generic computing components. The Examiner views that improvement to presenting documents to ensuring regulatory compliance is an improvement to an abstract idea rather than any of consideration enumerated under MPEP 2106.04 (d). The described improvement to viewing documents on small mobile devices the Examiner views is provided from the step of converting the document from a source format to HTML which the Examiner views as claimed can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper and does not constitute an additional element that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more.
Applicant argues the additional elements integrate any abstract idea of tailoring documents into a practical application by reciting technical implementations directed to improving computer functionality for mobile device document presentation as the claims recite “converting the document from a source format to a hypertext markup language format, organizing the hypertext markup language format of the document into a plurality of sections, wherein the plurality of sections includes at least one section selected from the group consisting of: a section on payments and interest, a section containing a Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statement, a section describing terms and conditions, and a section for signatures and confirmations, highlighting financial information in the hypertext markup language format of the document using hypertext markup language formatting, “ because these limitations define how the computer system transforms and processes financial documents to solve the technical problem of presenting complex regulatory-compliant financial documents on mobile devices with constrained display capabilities.
Specifically, Applicant contends the conversion to hypertext markup language format is not merely data formatting but enables the specific technical functionality required for regulatory-compliant mobile document presentation as discussed in paragraph 21 of the Specification. According to Applicant, the unlike source formats such as pdf, hypertext markup language format provides the technical flexibility needed to implement the claimed organizing and highlighting operations while maintaining regulatory compliance on mobile devices, as discussed in paragraph 34, therefore the claimed conversion step is a specific technical implementation that enables the subsequent technical operations.
Regarding the organizing limitation, Applicant contends, this limitation recites specific structural organization of the hypertext markup language document into regulatory compliance sections including a Truth-In- Lending Disclosure Statement. This limitation moves beyond generic data organization to recite a specific technical structure that addresses regulatory requirements for financial document presentation. Specification at 70. The Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statement is a federally mandated disclosure that must be presented in a specific manner to comply with regulatory requirements, and the claimed organizing operation structures the hypertext markup language document to enable compliant presentation on mobile devices. Specification at 57. The combination of hypertext markup language format with specific regulatory section organization provides a technical solution to the problem of ensuring financial documents meet federal disclosure requirements when presented on mobile devices with limited display capabilities.
The highlighting limitation recites specific hypertext markup language formatting techniques including bolding the financial information, increasing a font size of the financial information, shading the financial information, changing a color of the financial information, or enclosing the financial information in a box. These are not abstract formatting concepts but specific technical implementations using hypertext markup language capabilities to ensure regulatory compliance for financial disclosures on mobile devices. Specification at 71.
As described in the specification, highlighting financial information such as interest rates and finance charges using techniques like large bold type and boxes enclosing the information complies with regulatory requirements. Specification at 57. The claimed combination of hypertext markup language formatting techniques applied to specific financial information addresses the technical challenge identified in the specification that compliance with regulatory highlighting requirements can be difficult to achieve on a small display screen. Specification at 2.
Applicant contends the claimed combination of converting to hypertext markup language format, organizing into specific regulatory compliance sections including Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statements, and highlighting critical financial information using hypertext markup language formatting techniques provides a technological solution to the technical problem of presenting complex financial documents on mobile devices while ensuring regulatory compliance. This is analogous to improvements in user interface technology recognized as practical applications in cases involving specific technical implementations that enhance how information is presented on computing devices. The claimed technical implementation improves the functioning of mobile computing devices by enabling them to present complex, multi-jurisdictional financial documents in a regulatory-compliant manner despite the technical constraints of small display screens. The specific hypertext markup language-based technical approach recited in the amended claim therefore integrates any abstract idea into a practical application that improves computer functionality.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees reiterating that they view the converting, organizing, and highlighting steps as reciting steps of the identified abstract idea rather than constituting additional elements. The Examiner does not view any of the limitations proffered by Applicant to involve specific technical implementations but rather describes the functions described in a results focused manner rather than detailing how the invention specifically technically implements the claims.
Specifically, the conversion to HTML format there is no specificity in terms of how a source document is converted to HTML format to suggest that an individual could not observe the source document and process this (translate/convert) to obtain the source document in HTML format. The purported improvements asserted by Applicant the Examiner views as improving the abstract idea of organizing a document for review (including the organizing and highlighting of content with maintaining regulatory compliance) and does not constitute a technical improvement. The technical improvement to document presentation on a small mobile device is based on this converting step, which is a part of the recited abstract idea as claimed in this converting and does not constitute integration into a practical application. The Examiner notes “it is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” The Examiner does not view this conversion step that enables subsequent technical operations but a step of the recited abstract idea as previously discussed.
Regarding the organizing limitation the Examiner views this limitation further defines the abstract idea into terms of how the HTML document is organized into sections and what information is in each section. The Examiner does not view the converting and organizing limitations to constitute additional elements in combination but rather defines steps of the abstract idea.
Regarding the highlighting limitation, the Examiner views this limitation as further defining the abstract idea as part of organizing a document for review. The Examiner views the mere usage of HTML formatting does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical or adds significantly more but rather serves as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. Further the purported improvements related to highlighting to content in different manners for facilitating meeting regulatory compliance is an improvement to the identified abstract idea of organizing a document for review rather than a technical improvement.
The Examiner views the converting, organizing, and highlighting steps alone and in combination amount to no more than defining the abstract idea. The additional element of HTML formatting used does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more but rather serves as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. The Examiner does not view the improvements to be to technology but rather improving the abstract idea of organizing documents for review.
Applicant argues the claimed technical implementation is analogous to the subject matter eligibility guidance provided in Example 37 of the January 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which addresses rearranging icons on a graphical user interface. According to Applicant, in Example 37 the claim recites a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage was found to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because it provided a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices and the instant claims recite a specific manner of automatically presenting financial document content to co-borrowers based on geolocation and device characteristics through hypertext markup language conversion, regulatory section organization, and financial information highlighting. Applicant contends this provides a specific improvement over prior systems by enabling regulatory-compliant presentation of complex financial documents on mobile devices, resulting in an improved user interface for mobile computing devices that addresses the technical challenges of small display screens and regulatory compliance requirements.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the improvement in Example 37 is a technical improvement to mobile device GUIs while the present invention is an improvement to organizing financial documents for review. The limitations Applicant contends are additional elements similar to the step of assessing a usage of an icon the Examiner viewed as part of the abstract idea including the converting, organizing, and highlighting limitations as previously discussed.
Applicant argues the claims recites significantly more because they recite an ordered
combination of specific technical limitations that amount to an inventive concept. According to Applicant the claimed combination of converting documents to hypertext markup language format, organizing the hypertext markup language into specific regulatory compliance sections including Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statements, and highlighting financial information using specific hypertext markup language formatting techniques provides a concrete technological improvement in how financial documents are processed and displayed on mobile computing devices, where this specific technical implementation goes beyond merely using generic computer components to apply an abstract idea. Specifically, the hypertext markup language conversion, organization, and highlighting limitations work together to address the specific technical problem identified in the specification that it is difficult to adequately present complex loan document contents on a small display screen so that a borrower can review and understand the terms, and that compliance with regulatory highlighting requirements for content such as interest rates can be difficult to achieve on a small display screen. Specification at 2. The claimed solution uses specific hypertext markup language-based technical implementations to overcome these technical challenges. The conversion to hypertext markup language format enables subsequent technical operations; the organization into specific regulatory sections including Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statements structures the document to meet federal disclosure requirements; and the highlighting using specific hypertext markup language formatting techniques ensures that critical financial information is prominently displayed in compliance with regulatory requirements. Specification at 57, 70-71.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing that the limitations as proffered by Applicant are a part of the recited abstract idea as previously discussed and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical or add significantly more. The Examiner views that the improvements are to an abstract idea of organizing documents for review rather than an improvement to technology as asserted by Applicant.
Applicant argues the action characterizes the displaying steps as result-oriented without restriction on how the result is accomplished. Action at 5. According to Applicant, the amendments address this concern by reciting specific technical mechanisms for how the displaying is accomplished through the hypertext markup language conversion, regulatory section organization, and hypertext markup language formatting operations. Applicant contends these limitations define concrete technical steps that specify how the computer system processes and presents the financial documents, not merely what result is achieved. The combination of these specific technical implementations amounts to significantly more than any abstract idea because it recites a particular technical solution to a technical problem using specific hypertext markup language-based processing techniques. The claimed hypertext markup language-based approach provides specific technical advantages for mobile document presentation that go beyond conventional document processing. The specification explains that the systems and methods provide efficiencies in rendering documents on small devices, and because the documents can be modified to highlight interest rates, finance charges, and disclaimers in compliance with federal and state laws and regulations using hypertext markup language formatting, a signature on the document indicates the borrower has read and understood the highlighted items. Specification at 29. This demonstrates that the claimed technical implementation improves the functioning of mobile computing devices by enabling regulatory-compliant presentation of complex financial documents in a technically superior manner compared to presenting source format documents on mobile devices.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing that the limitations as proffered by Applicant are a part of the recited abstract idea as previously discussed and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical or add significantly more. The Examiner views that the improvements are to an abstract idea of organizing documents for review rather than an improvement to technology as asserted by Applicant.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Examiner has maintained the 101 rejection.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 12-14 of the Remarks, regarding the 103 rejection the Examiner finds unpersuasive. Applicant’s argument is directed to the previously cited combination of references fail to provide for the independent claims as amended. Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot in view of the new combination of references cited in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Therefore, the Examiner has maintained the 103 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shah et al. (US 20190179842) – directed to extraction of relevant sections from a plurality of documents.
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 MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833. 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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629