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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to RCE filed 11/7/2025.
This action is made Non-Final.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 18 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant remarks that Lee, Almgren, Kovacs and Dease, alone or in combination, fail to teach the feature of amended claim 1 (pages 8-10). The Examiner disagrees. Applicant is directed to the updated rejection of the claims wherein the Examiner articulates how the cited references teach every feature of the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (USPUB 20090164791 A1) in view of Almgren (USPUB 20160196297 A1).
Claim 1:
Lee discloses A computer-implemented method for annotating or signing an electronic document (0002 and 0007), the method comprising: receiving or retrieving an electronic document available for annotation or execution by one or more parties (0007, 0015, 0020: “generating the electronic document to be signed, the electronic document defining at least one signature area for insertion of an authorized digital signature”; transmitting the electronic document for display on a first computing device to the first computing device at a first location (0007, 0015, 0020: a user of a system is able to view the document to be signed); authenticating an identity of a first user of the first computing device (0007, 0016 and 0021: “receiving an identification and password input by a user…for validating [of] the identification and the password”); receiving electronic signals representing a first user input of the first user from the first computing device (0007, 0016, 0017, 0021-22 and 0024: a plurality of user digital signatures may be received on the document); generating digital data representative of a first indicia based on the first user input of the first user from the first computing device (0007, 0017, 0022 and 0024: “the signing unit…obtains the image including the digital signature of the seller, and resizes the image corresponding the signature area, and inserts the resized image of the seller into the signature area”, where a plurality of user digital signatures may be received on the document); and applying the digital data representative of the first indicia to the electronic document to form a first annotation or signature from the first user (0007, 0017, 0022: “the signing unit…obtains the image including the digital signature of the seller, and resizes the image corresponding the signature area, and inserts the resized image of the seller into the signature area”).
Lee, by itself, does not seem to completely teach generating a first hash code based on a timestamp of the first user input, wherein the first hash code is unique to the first user input; wherein the first indicia includes a visual representation of the first hash code; and upon receiving, from the first computing device, electronic signals representing a second user input of the first user generating a second hash code unique to the second user input.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Almgren.
Almgren teaches generating a hash code based on a timestamp of the user input; wherein the indicia includes a visual representation of the hash code (0066, 0124-125, 0180 and 0217-218: FIG. 3 illustrates the method steps of a method for creating a signal for time-stamping of documents according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention. Such a signal may, for instance, be in the form of an alphanumerical value or a graphical code, such as a QR- or bar code, representing such a value, or have any other type of information format, and is published, transmitted, publishable or transmittable... the embedded time-stamping signal is in the form of a piece of information from which the value of the signal can be deduced. The three examples are all applied to a document 400 comprising image data... the time-stamping signal 402 is introduced in the form of a graphical element, such as a string of alphanumeric characters, a QR code or a barcode, into a visual representation of the document, which graphical element carries said piece of information. Hence, by viewing the document 400 image and interpreting the graphical element, the value of the time-stamping signal is readily available... the document is published with a visibly embedded piece of information 702, such as described above in connection to FIG. 4a. This publishing is done by a publishing device 700, which may for instance be a print shop or -office, arranged to receive the above said updated time-stamping signal and to embed it into the image 701 as information 702. It is preferred that the information 702 is published as an integrated and inseparable part of the document 701. It is further preferred that the information 702 is embedded in the form of a QR code or barcode, since such are easily recognized by image interpretation software in the system... the document 1001 is continuously time-stamped as described above, by being sent to the system 100, via interface 104, and by the system 100 continuously creating and publishing, via interface 103, an updated signature for the currently received document... By “continuously” in this context is meant that a new signature is calculated either periodically using a short period such as at least once every minute or at least once every ten seconds and/or as soon as the contents of the document 1001 changes and/or as soon as the time-stamping signal is updated by the system).
Lee and Almgren are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, capturing and managing digital signatures on electronic documents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Almgren before him or her, to combine the teachings of Lee and Almgren. The rationale for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of providing a secure method of capturing digital signatures of multiple users.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Almgren to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claims 4 and 15:
Lee teaches concurrently with transmitting the electronic document for display on the first computing device to the first computing device, transmitting the electronic document for display on a second computing device to the second computing device at a second location; authenticating an identity of a second user of the second computing device; receiving electronic signals representing an user input of the second user from the second computing device; generating digital data representative of an indicia based the user input of the second user from the second computing device; and applying the digital data to the electronic document to form a first annotation or signature from the second user (0007, 0014-17, 0020-22 and 0024).
Lee, by itself, does not seem to completely teach generating a second hash code based on a timestamp of the user input of the second user wherein the second hash code differs from the first hash code; generating digital data representative of a second indicia based on the user input of the second user from the second computing device, wherein the second indicia includes a visual representation of the second hash code.
The Examiner maintains that these features were well-known as taught by Almgren.
Almgren teaches generating a second hash code based on a timestamp of the second user input, wherein the second hash code differs from the first hash code; wherein the second indicia includes a visual representation of the second hash code (0217-220: the document 1001 is continuously time-stamped as described above, by being sent to the system 100, via interface 104, and by the system 100 continuously creating and publishing, via interface 103, an updated signature for the currently received document 1001. Preferably, the signature is used as an input variable to a one-way function used for calculating an updated value of the time-stamping signal according to the above described... a currently updated time-stamping signal, calculated based upon at least the updated signature of the document 1001, or the signature itself, can be embedded as a graphical item 1005 into the document 1001 itself, as described above in connection to FIG. 4a, and a corresponding value can be sent, via an independent communication channel, to the same or a different screen which can be viewed by the user, so that the two items can be compared directly and visually by the user).
Lee and Almgren are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, capturing and managing digital signatures on electronic documents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Almgren before him or her, to combine the teachings of Lee and Almgren. The rationale for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of providing a secure method of capturing digital signatures of multiple users.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Almgren to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 12:
Claim 12 recites a computer system for annotating or signing an electronic document, the computer system comprising: a processor; andPage 4 of 8Appl. No.: filed herewithAttorney Docket No.: 55752040-11 USAmdt. Dated September 30, 2019 a non-transitory computer-readable memory device storing machine-readable instructions wherein the processor is configured to, when executing the machine-readable instructions, perform the steps recited in claim 1.
As Lee teaches the claimed computer system (0002, 0007), claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale used above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 13, 14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Almgren in view of Dease (USPUB 20150067347 A1).
Claims 2 and 13:
Lee and Almgren teach every feature of claims 1 and 30.
Lee, by itself, does not seem to completely teach generating digital data representative of a second indicia based on the second user input of the first user from the first computing device, wherein the second indicia includes a visual representation of the second hash code; applying the digital data to a digital compliance audit certificate associated with the electronic document to form a second annotation or signature from the first user; and storing the digital compliance audit certificate on a database.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Dease.
Dease teaches receiving, from the first computing device, electronic signals representing a second user input of the first user; generating digital data representative of a second indicia based on the second user input of the first user from the first computing device; applying the digital data to a digital compliance audit certificate associated with the electronic document to form a second annotation or signature from the first user; and storing the digital compliance audit certificate on a database (Fig 16 and 0089-93).
Lee and Dease are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, capturing and managing digital signatures on electronic documents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Dease before him or her, to combine the teachings of Lee and Dease. The rationale for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of providing a secure method of capturing digital signatures of multiple users.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Dease to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claims 3 and 14:
Lee, by itself, does not seem to completely teach receiving, from the first computing device, electronic signals representing a signature of a person different from the first user; and applying the signature of the person different from the first user on the digital compliance audit certificate associated with the electronic document.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Dease.
Dease teaches generating digital data representative of a second indicia based on the second user input of the first user from the first computing device, wherein the second indicia includes a visual representation of the second hash code; applying the digital data to a digital compliance audit certificate associated with the electronic document to form a second annotation or signature from the first user; and storing the digital compliance audit certificate on a database (0093 and 0098).
Lee and Dease are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, capturing and managing digital signatures on electronic documents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Dease before him or her, to combine the teachings of Lee and Dease. The rationale for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of providing a secure method of capturing digital signatures of multiple users.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Dease to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claims 7 and 18:
Lee, by itself, does not seem to completely teach the user input of the first user comprises a typed string, and the generated indicia based on the typed string comprises: an unique visual icon, a hash code, or both, the unique visual icon or the hash code generated based on one or more of: a length of the typed string, a font of the typed string, a timestamp of the typed string, an IP address associated with the first computing device, a MAC address of the first computing device, and hardware information of the first computing device.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Dease.
Dease teaches the user input of the first user comprises a typed string, and the generated indicia based on the typed string comprises: an unique visual icon, a hash code, or both, the unique visual icon or the hash code generated based on one or more of: a length of the typed string, a font of the typed string, a timestamp of the typed string, an IP address associated with the first computing device, a MAC address of the first computing device, and hardware information of the first computing device (0082, 0083 and 0093).
Lee and Dease are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, capturing and managing digital signatures on electronic documents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Dease before him or her, to combine the teachings of Lee and Dease. The rationale for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of providing a secure method of capturing digital signatures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Dease to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Almgren and Dease and further in view of Kovacs (WO 2007034255 A1).
Claims 5 and 16:
Lee in view of Almgren and Dease teaches every feature of claims 2 and 31.
Lee, by itself, does not seem to completely teach identity authentication results, handwriting data, GPS location data, MAC address, IP addresses, hardware information relating to the first computing device, audio communication stream, visual communication stream, browsing information, and a time duration of displaying the electronic document at the first computing device.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Kovacs.
Kovacs teaches identity authentication results, handwriting data, GPS location data, MAC address, IP addresses, hardware information relating to the first computing device, audio communication stream, visual communication stream, browsing information, and a time duration of displaying the electronic document at the first computing device (Page 5 ln 11 – Page 6 ln 9).
Lee and Kovacs are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, capturing and managing digital signatures on electronic documents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Kovacs before him or her, to combine the teachings of Lee and Kovacs. The rationale for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of providing a secure method of capturing digital signatures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Kovacs to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claims 6 and 17:
Lee, by itself, does not seem to completely teach the user input of the first user comprises a handwriting of the user received by an input device configured to measure at least two of: points of pressure, thickness of lines, and cadence of handwriting of the first user, and the generated indicia based on the user input comprises the handwriting of the user.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Kovacs.
Kovacs teaches the user input of the first user comprises a handwriting of the user received by an input device configured to measure at least two of: points of pressure, thickness of lines, and cadence of handwriting of the first user, and the generated indicia based on the user input comprises the handwriting of the user (Page 4 ln 23-30 and page 6 ln 27-32).
Lee and Kovacs are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, capturing and managing digital signatures on electronic documents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Kovacs before him or her, to combine the teachings of Lee and Kovacs. The rationale for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of providing an ability to determine the digital signature inputted is accurate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Kovacs to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claims 8-11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Almgren in view of Kovacs.
Claims 8 and 19:
Lee and Almgren teach every feature of claim 1.
Lee, by itself, does not seem to completely teach generating a master file for the electronic document, the master file comprising at least a pressure profile of the first annotation or signature based on the user input of the first user, the pressure profile being unique and corresponding to the digital data representative of the indicia.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Kovacs.
Kovacs teaches generating a master file for the electronic document, the master file comprising at least a pressure profile of the first annotation or signature based on the user input of the first user, the pressure profile being unique and corresponding to the digital data representative of the indicia (Page 5 ln 24-27).
Lee and Kovacs are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, capturing and managing digital signatures on electronic documents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Kovacs before him or her, to combine the teachings of Lee and Kovacs. The rationale for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of providing a secure method of capturing digital signatures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Kovacs to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claims 9 and 20:
Lee, by itself, does not seem to completely teach the pressure profile comprises at least one of: cadence, speed, timestamp, date stamp, x-y coordinates of the first annotation or signature, byte count of the first annotation or signature, a device ID, and device information of the first computing device.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Kovacs.
Kovacs teaches the pressure profile comprises at least one of: cadence, speed, timestamp, date stamp, x-y coordinates of the first annotation or signature, byte count of the first annotation or signature, a device ID, and device information of the first computing device (Page 4 ln 23-30).
Lee and Kovacs are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, capturing and managing digital signatures on electronic documents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Kovacs before him or her, to combine the teachings of Lee and Kovacs. The rationale for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of providing a secure method of capturing digital signatures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Kovacs to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 10:
Lee, by itself, does not seem to completely teach assigning or retrieving an address of the electronic document on a blockchain; authenticating the first user as a valid party to the electronic document before applying the digital data to the electronic document to form the first annotation or signature from the first user; encrypting and storing an edited version of the electronic document including the first annotation or signature in a block on the blockchain; and assigning or retrieving an address of the block storing the edited version of the electronic document.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Kovacs.
Kovacs teaches assigning or retrieving an address of the electronic document on a blockchain; authenticating the first user as a valid party to the electronic document before applying the digital data to the electronic document to form the first annotation or signature from the first user; encrypting and storing an edited version of the electronic document including the first annotation or signature in a block on the blockchain; and assigning or retrieving an address of the block storing the edited version of the electronic document (Page 9 ln 4 – Page 10 ln 25).
Lee and Kovacs are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, capturing and managing digital signatures on electronic documents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Kovacs before him or her, to combine the teachings of Lee and Kovacs. The rationale for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of providing a secure method of capturing digital signatures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Kovacs to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 11:
Lee, by itself, does not seem to completely teach the block storing the edited version of the electronic document further comprises one or more of: a user identity, a timestamp associated with the first annotation or signature, the first annotation or signature, a digital compliance audit certificate, and a pressure profile.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Kovacs.
Kovacs teaches the block storing the edited version of the electronic document further comprises one or more of: a user identity, a timestamp associated with the first annotation or signature, the first annotation or signature, a digital compliance audit certificate, and a pressure profile (Page 9 ln 4 – Page 10 ln 25).
Lee and Kovacs are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, capturing and managing digital signatures on electronic documents.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Kovacs before him or her, to combine the teachings of Lee and Kovacs. The rationale for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of providing a secure method of capturing digital signatures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Kovacs to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the attached PTOL-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED-IBRAHIM ZUBERI whose telephone number is (571)270-7761. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-6 Fri: 7-12/OFF.
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, Steph Hong can be reached on (571) 272-4124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED H ZUBERI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178