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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending.
In response to Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1-5 and 8-10, the claims are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 with respect to the rejections of Claims 1 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended Claim 9 does not recite a judicial exception, and even assuming, arguendo, that Claim 9 contained a judicial exception, that the additional elements integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
However, Claim 9 recites “recognizing one or more combinations of characters included in the first image and a frame line below the characters;
recognizing the frame line as an approval field;
recognizing an array of one or more approval fields based on an arrangement of the one or more combinations of characters in the first image;
setting an approval order indicating an order of the one or more approvers who approve the first image, on a basis of the array of theand
storing the approval order in a storage device as an approval route.”
As stated in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the Non-Final Rejection dated 11/06/2025, the steps of recognizing approval fields based on a combination of characters and a delimiting line, and setting an approval order may be performed in the art. The amendment to Claim 9 of instead recognizing combinations of characters and a frame line does not substantially change the claim such that the recognizing steps are not abstract ideas. That is, recognizing a combination of characters and recognizing a frame line may be performed by visual observation and judgment by one of ordinary skill in the art. The additional element “recognize an array of one or more approval fields based on the arrangement of the one or more combinations of characters in the first image” may also be performed in the mind of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that the additional limitation “storing the approval order in a storage device as an approval route.” However, the cited applications of the stored information are not recited in Claim 9. Applicant argues that a stored approval route is stored “for, e.g., later retrieval or to identify approval fields corresponding to a target person.” Although this is recited in the specification, these applications are not recited in the claim and thus the storage of the approval order in a storage device is mere recitation of generic computer components. Additionally, paragraph [0043] of the specification also recites a “transmission unit” which refers to the stored approval route to identify an approval field. This unit or the function of retrieving information is not recited in Claim 9. Applicant also argues that Claim 9 “recites interactions of elements including non-routine and non-conventional functions.” However, identifying a frame line and recognizing an array of approval fields may be performed in the mind of one of ordinary skill in the art and there is no limitation of Claim 9 which reflects “an improvement to the functioning of a computer” as Claim 9 does not recite application of the method on a computer, generic or particular, other than a storage device, which is a generic computer component. Storing an approval order does not necessitate, implicate, or require the argued further use of later retrieval or identifying approval fields corresponding to a target person. Thus, the storing step cannot be considered to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the arguments regarding Step 2A and Step 2B, particularly arguments that the recognizing, setting, and storing steps do not recite mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, and arguments that the additional elements are integrated into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, are not considered convincing.
Claim 1 discloses a system with elements corresponding to the steps of method Claim 9. Claim 1 also recites a "workflow approval system," however simply implementing an abstract idea on a physical machine is not a patentable application of the abstract idea. Thus, Claim 1 is also not eligible subject matter.
Claims 8 and 10 depend from Claim 1 and 9, respectively, and do not contain additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant is advised to incorporate subject matter of Claim 2 to the independent claims (e.g. “display, on a display device, a second image in which an approval field image corresponding to the recognized array of the one or more approval fields is superimposed on the first image”), or to incorporate subject matter of paragraph [0042] and [0043] to the independent claims (e.g. “Specifically, the transmission unit 18 illustrated in FIG. 2 controls the communication module to transmit second image information J2 corresponding to the second image G2 generated by the display processing unit 16 to the target person assigned to the approval route RT1 in accordance with the approval order D1.”)
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Kobayashi and Lodhia. Although the rejection relies on the references Kobayashi and Lodhia, the natural language processing of Kobayashi is not relied upon to teach the limitation “recognize one or more combinations of characters included in the first image” and “recognize an array of one or more approval fields based on an arrangement of the one or more combinations of characters in the first image.”
Additionally, Applicant argues that because “the document ‘sections’ described in Lodhia are not defined or recognized until the hand-drawn layout image is processed,” that “there cannot be any line delimiting a ‘predetermined region.’” However, the region of Lodhia is ‘predetermined’ because the region defined by the user that draws the hand drawn image prior to the recognition step. Thus, the region is predetermined.
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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9
Step 1 – YES
Claim 9 discloses a process and thus falls in one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – YES
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea. Claim [1] recites “recognizing, by a recognition unit, one or more approval fields included in the first image on a basis of an arrangement of a combination of characters included in the first image and a delimiting line delimiting a predetermined region in the first image” and “setting, by a route setting unit, an approval order indicating an order of approvers who approve the first image, on a basis of an array of the recognized one or more approval fields.” Recognizing particular areas of an image as approval fields may be performed by one of ordinary skill in the art by observation and judgement. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art may observe a form and be able to recognize fields for approving the form. Setting an approval order based on approval fields may also be done by one of ordinary skill in the art by judgment and reasoning.
Step 2A, Prong Two – NO
Claim 9 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 9 recites “acquiring, by an acquisition unit, a first image,” “a recognition unit,” “a route setting unit,” and “wherein the delimiting line includes one or more straight lines or one or more curved lines.” Acquiring a first image is mere data gathering and thus amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity. The units, as interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f), are processors or equivalents thereof (Specification paragraph [0017] discloses “One or more processors of the information processing apparatus 101 function as the acquisition unit 11, the region setting unit 12, the recognition unit 14, the route setting unit 15, the display processing unit 16, the changing unit 17, and the transmission unit 18 by executing the approval order setting program stored in the storage unit 13.”) These units are thus generic computer components and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Finally, the limitation “wherein the delimiting line includes one or more straight lines or one or more curved lines” is insignificant extrasolution activity. The limitation modifies the acquired first image and thus is mere data gathering that does not meaningfully alter the scope of the claim.
Step 2B –NO
Claim 9 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 9 recites “acquiring, by an acquisition unit, a first image,” “a recognition unit,” “a route setting unit,” and “wherein the delimiting line includes one or more straight lines or one or more curved lines.” As stated above, the step of acquiring a first image and the limitation “delimiting line includes one or more straight lines or one or more curved lines” are extrasolution activities and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The units are generic computer components and thus also do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, Claim 9 is not eligible subject matter.
Claim 1 discloses a system with elements corresponding to the steps of method Claim 9. Claim 1 also recites a “workflow approval system,” however simply implementing an abstract idea on a physical machine is not a patentable application of the abstract idea. Thus, Claim 1 is also not eligible subject matter.
Claim 8 recites “a region setting unit that sets a partial region of the first image as a target region, wherein the recognition unit recognizes one or more approval fields included in the target region on a basis of an arrangement of a combination of characters and a delimiting line included in the target region.” The limitation is also an abstract idea that may be performed in the mind by one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, given an image with approval fields with characters and delimiting line(s), one of ordinary skill in the art is able to identify a region as a target region containing the approval fields. Thus, Claim 8 is also not eligible subject matter.
Claim 10, discloses a non-transitory with elements corresponding to the steps of method Claim 9. Claim 1 also recites a “workflow approval system,” however simply implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not a patentable application of the abstract idea. Thus, Claim 10 is also not eligible subject matter.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2019/0347299 A1) in view of Lodhia et al. (US 2020/0097719 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kobayashi teaches “A workflow approval system comprising:
an operation terminal that accepts an operation of a user or one or more approvers” (Kobayashi, [0025] discloses “The terminal 2 is a terminal such as a computer operated by each user of the information processing system 9. As the user of the information processing system 9, there are a creator who creates a document, an approver who approves an element defined for each element included in the created document, a requester who requests approval from the approver, or the like”); “and
an information processing apparatus comprising a processor and a storage device that stores one or more instructions” (Kobayashi, [0029] discloses “The control unit 11 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM), and the CPU reads out and executes the computer program (hereinafter referred to simply as “program”) stored in the ROM and the storage unit 12 to control each unit of the information processing apparatus 1”), “the processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
acquire a first image in response to the operation of the user on the operation terminal” (Kobayashi, [0056] discloses “the acquisition unit 111 acquires a document and an instruction to register the document from the terminal 2”; where a document is a first image),
set an approval order indicating an order of the one or more approvers who approve the first image, (Kobayashi, [0067] discloses “In a case where there are plural elements to which the changed part of the document belongs, the specification unit 113 may specify the approvers associated with each of the plural elements. In this case, in a case where plural approvers are specified, the notification unit 114 may notify of the request in order from the approver associated with the lower element to the approver associated with the higher element”), “and
store the approval order in the storage device as an approval route” (Kobayashi, [0048] discloses “The control unit 21 includes a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM, and the CPU reads out and executes the program stored in the ROM or the storage unit 22 to control each unit of the terminal 2”).
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach “recognize one or more combinations of characters included in the first image and a frame line below the characters, recognize the frame line as an approval field, recognize an array of one or more approval fields based on an arrangement of the one or more combinations of characters in the first image” and “on a basis of the array of the one or more approval fields.”
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Lodhia teaches “recognize one or more combinations of characters included in the first image and a frame line below the characters” (Lodhia, [0037] discloses “In this example, each section is defined by a substantially enclosed area (e.g. a rectangle, or box) that each include a content identifier 415. The content identifiers 415 in this example include text, for example, “img” (or “I” or “image”, or other similar variant) to indicate an image content type and “T” (or “text”, or “txt”, or other variant) to identify a text content type”; where ‘img’ is a combination of characters. Lodhia, [0054] discloses “In one embodiment, the system may recognize lines as indicating various sections of a document. For example, the system may recognize a first section identifier based on one or more delimiting lines defining a first section within the image”; where delimiting lines are a frame line below the characters),
recognize the frame line as an approval field” (Lodhia, [0049] discloses “Accordingly, in 602, the system may recognize, within the image of the hand-drawn layout, one or more section identifiers and a content identifier associated with each section identifier.” Lodhia, [0061] discloses “For example, the HTML template may include a placeholder for a content type. For example, the template may include a placeholder image or text to be edited by a user after the template is generated (e.g. during an editing/finalizing process)”; where image or text to be edited during editing/finalizing is an approval field; where recognizing section and content identifiers is recognizing an approval field),
“recognize an array of one or more approval fields based on an arrangement of the one or more combinations of characters in the first image” and “on a basis of the array of the one or more approval fields” (see Fig. 4A of Lodhia, where multiple section identifiers are an array of approval fields).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4A of Lodhia
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi to incorporate the teachings of Lodhia by identifying sections based on delimiting lines. The prior art Kobayashi contained a ‘base’ device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an ‘improvement.’ Kobayashi teaches ordering approvers of documents and teaches recognition of the text defining fields of a document using natural language processing, but does not explicitly teach recognizing boxes, lines or text in an image. The prior art Lodhia contained a ‘comparable’ device that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Lodhi discloses recognizing defined areas composed of lines in a document image, and recognizing characters or text in a document. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known ‘improvement’ technique in the same way to the ‘base’ device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the image analysis techniques of Lodhia to the approver ordering method of Kobayashi would have resulted in the predictable result of a method of ordering approvers using image analysis of an input document. Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the Kobayashi and Lodhia references in order to automate the process of document recognition: Lodhia, [0004] discloses “Accordingly, there is a need to further provide user-friendly capabilities and functionality for automation tools to increase the potential user base for such tools.” Accordingly, the combination of Kobayashi and Lodhia discloses the invention of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kobayashi and Lodhia teaches “The workflow approval system according to claim 1, wherein:
the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
set a partial region of the first image as a target region, and
recognize one or more approval fields included in the target region based on an arrangement of a combination of characters and a frame line included in the target region” (Kobayashi, [0066] discloses “The division unit 115 divides the element to which the changed part of the document belongs, from the document. In this case, the notification unit 114 may notify of the approval request of the changed part and may notify of the divided elements”; where a changed part of the document is a target region; where determining a changed part for an approval request is recognizing approval fields based on characters and, in combination with Lodhia, a frame line).
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Kobayashi and Lodhia references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Kobayashi and Lodhia references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Kobayashi and Lodhia references discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores one or more instructions for causing a computer to execute the workflow approval method according to claim 9” (Kobayashi, [0006] discloses “Aspects of non-limiting embodiments of the present disclosure relate to an information processing apparatus, an information processing system, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, for specifying an approver who requests approval of the document when the document is changed.”)
Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2019/0347299 A1) in view of Lodhia et al. (US 2020/0097719 A1), further in view of Bag (US 2021/0042713 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kobayashi and Lodhia teaches “The workflow approval system according to claim 1, wherein:
the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to display” (Kobayashi, [0051] discloses “The display unit 25 includes a display screen such as a liquid crystal display, and displays an image under the control of the control unit”),
Although Kobayashi, [0066] discloses “The division unit 115 divides the element to which the changed part of the document belongs, from the document. In this case, the notification unit 114 may notify of the approval request of the changed part and may notify of the divided elements. According to this configuration, the approver does not have to look at elements other than the element for which the approval is requested,” Kobayashi does not explicitly teach “on a display device, a second image in which an approval field image corresponding to the recognized array of the one or more approval fields is superimposed on the first image.”
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Bag teaches “on a display device, a second image in which an approval field image corresponding to the recognized array of the one or more approval fields is superimposed on the first image.” (Bag, [0062] discloses “The image of resource distribution instrument illustrated in FIG. 5B includes the processing from an image read program identifying the attributes. Each attribute is identified and a box is presented highlighting the attribute.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
469
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5B of Bag
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified Kobayashi and Lodhia to incorporate the teachings of Bag by presenting a highlighting box around attributes. The prior art Kobayashi contained a ‘base’ device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an ‘improvement.’ Kobayashi teaches a display device and identifying areas of a document, but does not explicitly teach superimposing a second image on a display. The prior art Bag contained a ‘comparable’ device that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Bag discloses identifying and highlighting, that is superimposing a box, on identified regions of an input document. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known ‘improvement’ technique in the same way to the ‘base’ device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the Kobayashi, Lodhia, and Bag references in order to avoid processing illegitimate documents by identifying regions of the document: Bag, [0001] discloses “Entities typically receive large volumes of documents from vendors, customers, or employees on any given day. Misappropriated documents appear very similar to legitimate documents and may be processed as such. Eventually, downstream, the misappropriated document may be identified and rejected. However, at that time resources and other actions may have been translated based on the document. As such, a system may be necessary to examine characteristics of the document for processing.” Accordingly, the combination of Kobayashi, Lodhia, and Bag discloses the invention of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kobayashi, Lodhia, and Bag teaches “The workflow approval system according to claim 2, wherein: the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to change at least one of a position at which one or more approval field images changes at least one of a position at which the one or more approval field images, including the approval field image, are superimposed, and a shape of the one or more approval field images” (Lodhia, [0044] discloses “As shown, the markup language 525 (e.g. HTML) may be displayed within the building tool. Accordingly, a user may further edit or modify the generated template in a convenient and efficient manner”; where building tool is a changing unit). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Kobayashi, Lodhia, and Bag references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 3 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in Claim 3 is met by Kobayashi, Lodhia, and Bag.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kobayashi, Lodhia, and Bag teaches “The workflow approval system according to claim 2, wherein:
the storage device stores, in the storage device, the approval route such that a target person is assigned to the approval order, as an approver corresponding to the one or more approval fields” (Kobayashi, [0031] discloses “The storage unit 12 is storage means such as a hard disk drive, and stores various programs, data, and the like which are read into the CPU of the control unit 11. Further, the storage unit 12 stores an element DB 121, an approval DB 122, and a document DB 123.” Kobayashi, [0059] discloses “Further, for example, in the terminal 2, in a case where a user who determines an approver of an element constituting a document performs an operation to instruct registration of the approver of the element, the acquisition unit 111 acquires an element ID indicating the element and an approver ID indicating the approver of the element, from the terminal 2”; where an approver of an element is a target person), “and
the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to transmit second image information, corresponding to the second image, to the target person assigned to the approval route, in accordance with the approval order” (Kobayashi, [0064] discloses “The notification unit 114 notifies the approver specified by the specification unit 113 of the approval request of the changed part described above”; where a changed part is second image information; where a notification unit is a transmission unit).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kobayashi, Lodhia, and Bag teaches “The workflow approval system according to claim 4, wherein:
the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
accept an input operation of inputting identification information indicating the target person on the operation terminal” (Kobayashi, [0059] discloses “the acquisition unit 111 acquires an element ID indicating the element and an approver ID indicating the approver of the element, from the terminal 2”; where an acquisition unit is a first acceptance unit), “and
assign the accepted identification information to the approver as the target person” (Kobayashi, [0060] discloses “In this case, the analysis unit 116 receives the element ID and the approver ID acquired by the acquisition unit 111, and registers the received element ID and approver ID in the approval DB 122 of the storage unit 12 in association with each other”).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kobayashi, Lodhia, and Bag teaches “The workflow approval system according to claim 4, wherein:
in a case that a newly set approval order is the same as the approval order of the approval route stored in the storage device, the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to select the target person assigned to the approval route stored in the storage device as the approver” (Kobayashi, [0043] discloses “FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of the approval DB 122 stored in the storage unit 12. The approval DB 122 illustrated in FIG. 7 is a database that stores approvers who approve the elements for each element constituting the document. The approval DB 122 illustrated in FIG. 7 includes an element ID list 1221 listing element IDs and an approver table 1222. The approver table 1222 is assigned one by one for each element ID stored in the element ID list 1221”; where approval DB stored in a storage unit is an approval route stored in the storage unit)
PNG
media_image3.png
163
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Kobayashi
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2019/0347299 A1) in view of Lodhia et al. (US 2020/0097719 A1), further in view of Bag (US 2021/0042713 A1), further in view of Garrido et al. (US 2023/0316190 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kobayashi, Lodhia, and Bag teaches “The workflow approval system according to claim 4, wherein:
the operation terminal:
receives the second image information transmitted from the information processing apparatus” (Kobayashi, [0056] discloses “the acquisition unit 111 acquires a document and an instruction to register the document from the terminal 2”; where acquisition unit is a reception unit), “and
accepts an operation by the target person” (Kobayashi, [0059] discloses “the acquisition unit 111 acquires an element ID indicating the element and an approver ID indicating the approver of the element, from the terminal 2”; where an acquisition unit is a second acceptance unit; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a first and second acceptance unit may be the same unit; that is, Kobayashi, discloses a process which may have multiple approvers, thus the units of Fig. 9, above, are implemented for multiple approvers), “and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
The combination of Kobayashi, Lodhia, and Bag does not explicitly teach “adds an approval image to an approval field, among the one or more approval fields included in the second image corresponding to the second image information, that corresponds to the target person in a case that the operation by the target person is accepted, and in a case that the approval image is added, transmit the second image information to a target person corresponding to an approval field to which the approval image is not added.”
However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Garrido teaches “adds an approval image to an approval field, among the one or more approval fields included in the second image corresponding to the second image information, that corresponds to the target person in a case that the operation by the target person is accepted, and in a case that the approval image is added, transmit the second image information to a target person corresponding to an approval field to which the approval image is not added” (Garrido, [0053] discloses “A signature workflow requires that the target document be executed by one or more users of the document management system 110. In some embodiments, the signature workflow follows the approval workflow 840. A routing workflow requires that the target document be sent to multiple users. For example, combining the approval workflow 840, routing workflow, and signature workflow may require the document management system 110 to send the target document to a second user for signing, once the first approver has approved the target document”; where a signature filling identified locations is an approval image added to an approval field; where sending target document to a second user is transmitting the second image information to a target person. Garrido, [0062] also discloses “Any of the steps, operations, or processes described herein may be performed or implemented with one or more hardware or software modules, alone or in combination with other devices”; thus, the step of sending a signed document to another user for signing is implemented on a module, or transmission unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kobayashi, Lodhia, and Bag to incorporate the teachings of Garrido by adding a signature to a document before sending to a second user. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the Kobayashi, Lodhia, Bag, and Garrido references in order to allow users to improve document revision processes: Garrido, [0005] discloses “To help improve the document generation and revision process, a document management system provides users with an interface to customize document workflows.” Accordingly, the combination of Kobayashi, Lodhia, Bag, and Garrido discloses the invention of Claim 6.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CAROLINE TABANCAY DUFFY whose telephone number is (703)756-1859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 5712723382. 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.
/CAROLINE TABANCAY DUFFY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662