DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2024 have been entered and considered. Initialed copies of the PTO-1449 by the Examiner are attached.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “solution)” in line 22 of claim 1 should read “solution” because the close bracket needs to be deleted.
Claim 1 recites in part “wherein the smart assist feature enables the signer to mark incorrect key metadata fields, if any, with a red flag”; however, the conditions need to be given with the steps completed listed if there is a red flag and where there is no red flag. A second option is for applicant to positively recite the step without the ‘If’ statement as shown in claim 6.
Claim 1 recites in part “A system for electronic signature having at least one document to be signed,…”; the Examiner suggested changing the claim to state “A system for signing an electronic document with an electronic signature
Claim 6 recites in part “comprising the steps of”. Please amend the claim by removing the word “the” which induces indefinite language in order to avoid a 35 USC 112(b) indefinite rejection.
Claim 6 recites in part “least one document to be signed” and “to be communicated to the sender”. Please amend the claims to remove the indefinite language in order to avoid a 35 USC 112(b) indefinite rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a system, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1, in part recites “wherein the smart assist feature assists the signer to assess the document for errors; wherein the smart assist feature extracts the key metadata fields from individual paragraphs of the document; wherein the electronic signature solution; wherein the smart assist feature enables the signer to mark incorrect key metadata fields, if any, with a red flag; wherein the smart assist feature enables the signer to type a message with respect to an erred metadata field, to be communicated to the sender”.
The step of “accessing the document for errors” of the claim encompass making a determination about a printed document by manually marking the page(s) containing the errors. Also, the step of “extracts the key metadata fields from individual paragraphs of the document” of the claim encompass making a determination of the page(s)/ or paragraph containing the noted errors. Finally, the steps of “enables the signer to mark incorrect key metadata fields, if any, with a red flag” and “enables the signer to type a message with respect to an erred metadata field, to be communicated to the sender”, of the claim encompass making a determination of the pages/ paragraph of the printed matter with potential errors by underline them with a red ink pen and making a note for e.g., on a sticky pad with a message including the page number and/or paragraph needing correction. All the following steps are mental observations and these, mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processed” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application. In particular, the claim in part recites the additional elements –
a sender computing system,
a signer computing system,
a communication network,
a hosting server to store the document,
an input device, an output device,
plurality of databases,
databases which contain heuristic learnings for extraction of key metadata fields from the document
an electronic signature solution including a smart assist feature and a graphical user interface;
wherein the electronic signature solution includes databases which contain heuristic learnings for extraction of key metadata fields from the document;
wherein the smart assist feature automatically, instantaneously and smartly displays the corresponding key metadata fields for the individual paragraphs of the document to the signer as he scrolls down the document for verification
wherein the electronic signature solution allows communication of the message and returning of the document for correction to the sender via the communication network;
wherein the smart assist feature automatically and smartly displays a summary of the document consisting of compilation of all key metadata fields;
wherein the sender and the signer interact with the electronic signature solution) through the graphical user interface.
The “a sender computing system”, “a signer computing system”, “a communication network”, “a hosting server to store the document” an input device”, “an output device” and “plurality of databases” are recited as being operated connected together. The “sender computing system” and “signer computing system”, “an input device” and “an output device” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than a graphical user interface and computer storage used to apply the exception and are parts of a generic computer. Also, the “a hosting server to store the document”, “plurality of databases” and “a communication network are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than more than generic computers connected through a local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN).
As recited, the steps of “wherein the electronic signature solution allows communication of the message and returning of the document for correction to the sender via the communication network”, “wherein the smart assist feature automatically and smartly displays a summary of the document consisting of compilation of all key metadata fields” and “wherein the sender and the signer interact with the electronic signature solution) through the graphical user interface” are mere data output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
The “wherein the electronic signature solution includes databases which contain heuristic learnings for extraction of key metadata fields from the document” is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the electronic signature solution functions. The electronic signature solution is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a computer with a generic learning model to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite the outcome of “heuristic learnings for extraction of key metadata fields from the document” and without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the reasons
given in Step 2A Prong 2. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-5 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites in part “wherein the sender computing system and the signer computing system communicate with each other via the communication network “do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites in part “wherein the key metadata fields include names of the parties to the contract, term of contract, date of execution of contract, date of expiry of the contract, value of contract, renewal term, termination option, penalty amount, liquidated damages amount, limitation of liability, credit period, price escalation percentage, termination for convenience, termination for breach, and force majeure” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claim 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites in part “wherein the smart assist feature extracts the key metadata fields based on pre-configured training of the electronic signature solution“ do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites in part “wherein the key metadata fields to be displayed to the signer are configurable by the sender“ do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1, in part recites “accessing the transmitted document via the electronic signature solution comprising of the smart assist feature; clicking on the smart assist feature; performance of the following steps by the smart assist feature; extraction of key metadata fields from individual paragraphs; automatic display/presentation of the key metadata fields from individual paragraphs in an instantaneous and smart manner as the signer scrolls down the document for verification; and execution of the following steps in case of an error in any of the key metadata fields of the document: marking the erred metadata fields with a red flag by the signer; popping up of a message window to the signer; typing of a message by the signer, to be communicated to the sender;”.
The step of “accessing the transmitted document via the electronic signature solution comprising of the smart assist feature” of the claim encompass making a determination about a printed document by having a user manually marking the page(s) containing the errors. Also, the step of “clicking on the smart assist feature” of the claim encompass making a determination of the page(s)/ or paragraph containing the noted errors. Further, the steps of “extraction of key metadata fields from individual paragraphs; automatic display/presentation of the key metadata fields from individual paragraphs in an instantaneous and smart manner as the signer scrolls down the document for verification” includes the user making note as to which specific pages contains the errors. Finally, the steps of “execution of the following steps in case of an error in any of the key metadata fields of the document: marking the erred metadata fields with a red flag by the signer”, “popping up of a message window to the signer” and “typing of a message by the signer, to be communicated to the sender”, steps of the claim encompass making a determination of the pages/ paragraph of the printed matter with potential errors by underline them with a red ink pen and making a note for e.g., on a sticky pad with a message including the page number and/or paragraph needing correction. All the following steps are mental observations and these, mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processed” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application. In particular, the claim in part recites the additional elements –
sending of at least one document to be signed by a sender to a signer
transmission of the document;
receiving the transmitted document by the signer
returning the flagged document and communicating the message to the sender via the communication network; and
automated displaying of summary of all the key metadata fields of the document to the signer.
a sender computing system,
a communication network,
a signer computing device
returning the flagged document and communicating the message to the sender via the communication network;
automated displaying of summary of all the key metadata fields of the document to the signer.
As recited, the steps of “sending of at least one document to be signed by a sender to a signer”, “transmission of the document” , “receiving the transmitted document by the signer, “returning the flagged document and communicating the message to the sender via the communication network”, “automated displaying of summary of all the key metadata fields of the document to the signer, “returning the flagged document and communicating the message to the sender via the communication network” and automated displaying of summary of all the key metadata fields of the document to the signer” are mere data input/output activities recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
The “sender computing system”, “signer computing system” and “a communication network are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than more than generic computers connected through communication network such as a local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the reasons
given in Step 2A Prong 2. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bui et al (US Patent No.: 20180239507).
Regarding independent claim 1, Bui discloses a system for electronic signature (methods and systems for compact presentation of automatically summarized information according to rule-based graphically – see abstract) having at least one document to be signed (an electronic document that can be filled out and submitted through a computer with an internet/network connection – see [p][0019]), a sender computing system ([t]he goal optimization system 100 – see Fig 2A and [p][0128]), a signer computing system (user device 110 – see Fig 2A and [p][0137]), a communication network (1920, network link – see Fig 19; one or more networks (e.g., the Internet) – see [p][0137]), a hosting server (1930 – see Fig 19) to store the document (a data storage database 129 that can store documents, images, video, or any arbitrary information that is received from, or is made accessible to, users of the user – see [p][017]), an input device (116, user interface – see Fig 2A and, inputs and outputs provided via interactive user interfaces of the system (e.g., as presented on user devices) – see [p][0441]), an output device (116, user interface – see Fig 2A and a display of the user device, such as a touch screen display – see Fig 141), and plurality of databases (120, 128 and 129 – see Fig 2A), comprising: an electronic signature solution (FIG. 14C illustrates an example user interface 1415 for electronically signing documents. For instance, a user of the user interface 1415 can enter his/her name, and a signature (e.g., a stylized signature) can be automatically generated (e.g., an image) – see [p][0252]) including a smart assist feature ([f]or instance, the user interface 1410 indicates that the user is to wait for counsel to perform actions – see [p][0252]) and a graphical user interface (116, inputs and outputs provided via interactive user interfaces of the system (e.g., as presented on user devices) – see Fig 2A and [p][0441]); wherein the smart assist feature assists the signer to assess the document for errors (prompts the user to create an account and grants appropriate access permissions to the newly created account so as to allow the collaborator to view and edit the form for which he or she was invited – see [p][0273]); wherein the smart assist feature extracts the key metadata fields from individual paragraphs of the document (parsing a document in a machine-readable format (e.g., OpenDocument) to extract the text contained within the document. Once the text has been extracted, parsing techniques may be applied, as described elsewhere in the present disclosure, to determine various items of information associated with the document – see [p][0281] and a document or type of document may be associated with a specific reviewer), and specific data in the document (e.g., a document may be associated with a metadata field indicating a specific reviewer) – see [p][0288]); wherein the electronic signature solution includes databases which contain heuristic learnings for extraction of key metadata fields from the document (the system can utilize machine learning models (e.g., trained using historical information associated with previously completed goals) to determine an optimal path through the graph, for instance based on features of the presently occurring goal (e.g., information describing the goal, types of user roles required, statistical information such as completion times for particular tasks, and so on) – see [p][0135]); wherein the smart assist feature automatically (updates may be calculated automatically by the system to only contain pieces that have changed (e.g., a diff on old data) – see [p][0220]), instantaneously ([a] real time updating mechanism can safely and efficiently provide updates from the system to the client – see [p][0220]) and smartly displays (see Fig 17A) the corresponding key metadata fields for the individual paragraphs of the document to the signer (system automatically generates one or more options tables based on the analyses (block 1656). The system may analyze a first document, and identify locations in the document at which specific terms appear. For example, the system can utilize the ontology information to identify a particular term that may be included in the first document. The system can then access information indicating different wordings or verbiage utilized to express the particular term – see [p][0402]) as he scrolls down (the user interface 1670 may respond to user input, and the user may scroll down such that additional terms may be presented – see [p][0408]) the document for verification (reviewing documents – see [p][0186]); wherein the smart assist feature enables the signer to mark incorrect key metadata fields, if any, with a red flag (the system can allow users to provide documents, generate revisions of documents, amend or otherwise ‘red-line’ – see [p][0382]); wherein the smart assist feature enables the signer to type a message with respect to an erred metadata field ([t]he particular user can perform other user actions in addition to provide an executed document, for instance the particular user can provide a comment for viewing by other users (e.g., a comment with respect to the document) – see [p][0142]), to be communicated to the sender ([a]dditionally, the user can provide a message, email, or other notification, to a user that performed the action or task (e.g., to inquire about it) – see [p][0238]); wherein the electronic signature solution allows communication of the message and returning of the document for correction to the sender via the communication network (the administrative user, the limited users, and other interested parties may communicate via electronic messages, such as email. In some embodiments, the systems of the present disclosure facilitates such communication via electronic messages by automatically generating messages, sending messages, and receiving responses to messages. In an example embodiment, the limited users may receive an automatically generated email when new documents are available for their review and signature. By clicking a reference, such as a hyperlink, contained in the message, the limited user may be directed to an online system where the form will be presented. Once the limited user has signed the form, the systems of the present disclosure may automatically generate an electronic message to the administrative user, indicating that the form has been signed – [p][0027]); wherein the smart assist feature automatically and smartly displays a summary of the document consisting of compilation of all key metadata fields (the extracted terms and values can be presented to a user as a summary of a document. Thus, users can gain insights into potentially impenetrable contracts through viewing the underlying terms. Indeed, the terms themselves may be presented in easy to understand verbiage, instead of the actual language included in the documents, such that unsophisticated users can rapidly understand the documents. As will be described, a system (e.g., the goal optimization system 100) can extract terms from disparate types of documents. The system can also extract terms from differing forms of a same type of document. For example, a first document source, such as a first law firm or other entity, may prefer a certain format, style, verbiage, and so on, for a particular type of contract – see Fig 16 and [p][0336]); and wherein the sender and the signer interact with the electronic signature solution) through the graphical user interface (in various embodiments certain functionality may be accessible by a user through a web-based viewer (such as a web browser), or other suitable software program). In such implementations, the user interface may be generated by a server computing system and transmitted to a web browser of the user (e.g., running on the user's computing system). Alternatively, data (e.g., user interface data) necessary for generating the user interface may be provided by the server computing system to the browser, where the user interface may be generated (e.g., the user interface data may be executed by a browser accessing a web service and may be configured to render the user interfaces based on the user interface data). The user may then interact with the user interface through the web-browser. User interfaces of certain implementations may be accessible through one or more dedicated software applications. In certain embodiments, one or more of the computing devices and/or systems of the disclosure may include mobile computing devices, and user interfaces may be accessible through such mobile computing devices (for example, smartphones and/or tablets) – see [p][0465]).
Regarding claim 2, Bui teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sender computing system and the signer computing system communicate with each other via the communication network (1920, network link – see Fig 19; one or more networks (e.g., the Internet) – see [p][0137]).
Regarding claim 4, Bui teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the smart assist feature extracts the key metadata fields based on pre-configured training of the electronic signature solution (utilize machine learning models (e.g., trained using historical information associated with previously completed goals) to determine an optimal path through the graph, for instance based on features of the presently occurring goal (e.g., information describing the goal, types of user roles required, statistical information such as completion times for particular tasks, and so on). In this way, the system can ensure that goals are completed efficiently, and can further update and refine paths over time through monitoring multitudes of goals – see [p][0125]).
Regarding claim 5, Bui teaches the, wherein the key metadata fields to be displayed to the signer are configurable by the sender (certain functionality may be accessible by a user through a web-based viewer (such as a web browser), or other suitable software program). In such implementations, the user interface may be generated by a server computing system and transmitted to a web browser of the user (e.g., running on the user's computing system). Alternatively, data (e.g., user interface data) necessary for generating the user interface may be provided by the server computing system to the browser, where the user interface may be generated (e.g., the user interface data may be executed by a browser accessing a web service and may be configured to render the user interfaces based on the user interface data). The user may then interact with the user interface through the web-browser. User interfaces of certain implementations may be accessible through one or more dedicated software applications. In certain embodiments, one or more of the computing devices and/or systems of the disclosure may include mobile computing devices, and user interfaces may be accessible through such mobile computing devices (for example, smartphones and/or tablets – see [p][0465]).
Regarding independent claim 6 Bui method for electronic signature including an electronic signature solution (methods and systems for compact presentation of automatically summarized information according to rule-based graphically – see abstract) with a smart assist feature ([f]or instance, the user nterface 1410 indicates that the user is to wait for counsel to perform actions – see [p][0252]), comprising the steps of: sending of at least one document to be signed by a sender to a signer from a sender computing system (a user may be able to perform a variety of actions or tasks by responding to an email from the system, such as sending requests to other users to perform a task, granting permissions to other users to perform a task, sending reminders or follow-ups to other users related to a task, inviting new people to a transactions (e.g., allowing new user accounts to be created) -see [p][0153]); transmission of the document via a communication network (1920, network link – see Fig 19; one or more networks (e.g., the Internet) – see [p][0137]); receiving the transmitted document by the signer on a signer computing device (a data storage database 129 that can store documents, images, video, or any arbitrary information that is received from, or is made accessible to, users of the user – see [p][017])); accessing the transmitted document via the electronic signature solution comprising of the smart assist feature (the system can monitor versions of documents being transmitted between negotiating parties – see [p][0409]); clicking on the smart assist feature (the user to navigate to different parts of the form by clicking on the section headers displayed – see [p][0270]); performance of the following steps by the smart assist feature (FIG. 14C illustrates an example user interface 1415 for electronically signing documents. For instance, a user of the user interface 1415 can enter his/her name, and a signature (e.g., a stylized signature) can be automatically generated (e.g., an image) – see [p][0252]); extraction of key metadata fields from individual paragraphs (parsing a document in a machine-readable format (e.g., OpenDocument) to extract the text contained within the document. Once the text has been extracted, parsing techniques may be applied, as described elsewhere in the present disclosure, to determine various items of information associated with the document – see [p][0281] and a document or type of document may be associated with a specific reviewer), and specific data in the document (e.g., a document may be associated with a metadata field indicating a specific reviewer) – see [p][0288]); automatic display/presentation of the key metadata fields from individual paragraphs in an instantaneous ([a] real time updating mechanism can safely and efficiently provide updates from the system to the client – see [p][0220]) and smart manner as the signer scrolls down the document for verification (the user interface 1670 may respond to user input, and the user may scroll down such that additional terms may be presented – see [p][0408]); and execution of the following steps in case of an error in any of the key metadata fields of the document: marking the erred metadata fields with a red flag by the signer (the system can allow users to provide documents, generate revisions of documents, amend or otherwise ‘red-line’ – see [p][0382]); popping up of a message window to the signer; typing of a message by the signer, to be communicated to the sender ([a]dditionally, the user can provide a message, email, or other notification, to a user that performed the action or task (e.g., to inquire about it) – see [p][0238]); returning the flagged document and communicating the message to the sender via the communication network (the administrative user, the limited users, and other interested parties may communicate via electronic messages, such as email. In some embodiments, the systems of the present disclosure facilitates such communication via electronic messages by automatically generating messages, sending messages, and receiving responses to messages. In an example embodiment, the limited users may receive an automatically generated email when new documents are available for their review and signature. By clicking a reference, such as a hyperlink, contained in the message, the limited user may be directed to an online system where the form will be presented. Once the limited user has signed the form, the systems of the present disclosure may automatically generate an electronic message to the administrative user, indicating that the form has been signed – [p][0027]); and automated displaying of summary of all the key metadata fields of the document to the signer (the extracted terms and values can be presented to a user as a summary of a document. Thus, users can gain insights into potentially impenetrable contracts through viewing the underlying terms. Indeed, the terms themselves may be presented in easy to understand verbiage, instead of the actual language included in the documents, such that unsophisticated users can rapidly understand the documents. As will be described, a system (e.g., the goal optimization system 100) can extract terms from disparate types of documents. The system can also extract terms from differing forms of a same type of document. For example, a first document source, such as a first law firm or other entity, may prefer a certain format, style, verbiage, and so on, for a particular type of contract – see Fig 16 and [p][0336]).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Bui et al (US Patent No.: 20180239507) in view of Bartholomew (NPL titled: Owner–Construction Contractor Prime Contract “Red Flag” Clauses) in view of Ozkan et al (NPL titled: IMPACTS OF CONSUMER LAW NO 6502 ON INSURANCE ACTIVITIES: COMPARING WITH EU LAW)
Regarding claim 3, Bui teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the key metadata fields include names of the parties to the contract (for e.g Max Master, 1430 – see Fig 14G and [p][0268]), term of contract (for e.g. Fig 14 H and [p][0272]), date of execution of contract (2224 e – see Fig 22c and [p][0306]), date of expiry of the contract (some section of the contract has 30 day, some 60 days – see Fig 17F), value of contract (capital commitment – see Fig 14Q and [p][0333]) and termination option (Rights of refusal – see Fig 17F).
Bui does not explicitly teach liquidated damages amount, price escalation percentage, termination for convenience, force majeure and limitation of liability.
However, Bartholomew explicitly teach liquidated damages amount (liquidated damage figures these have varied from less than $50 per day to over $50,000 per day – see page 10, section - Liquidated or Actual Damages for Late Completion, subsection 1), price escalation percentage (stated percentage of the escalation cost – see page 22, section Escalation Provisions, [p][002]), termination for convenience (a termination for the convenience of the owner or, more simply, a convenience termination – see page 7, [p][003]), force majeure ([s]uch conditions are sometimes called conditions of force majeure and normally would include acts, or failures to act, by the owner or others and “acts of God” that delay or prevent the contractor’s performance – see pages 4-5, subsection - Delays and Suspensions of Work, [p][001]) and limitation of liability (limiting the owner’s liability for inaccurate or otherwise misleading reports of physical site condition – see page 18, subsection Exculpatory Clauses in General, [p][001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Bui of a system for electronic signature having at least one document to be signed, a sender computing system, with the teachings of Bartholomew liquidated damages amount, price escalation percentage, termination for convenience, force majeure and limitation of liability.
Wherein having Bui liquidated damages amount, price escalation percentage, termination for convenience, force majeure and limitation of liability.
The motivation behind the modification would have been for identifying the major categories of typical contract documents and constrain user actions available to be performed according to a state associated with completion of a goal since both Bui and Bartholomew relate to processing contract documents, wherein Bui constrain user actions available to be performed according to a state associated with completion of the goal while Bartholomew is for identifying the major categories of typical contract documents where a prudent contractor bidder will do much more before making a decision on whether to proceed (Please see Bui et al (US20180239507A1), Paragraph [0132], and Bartholomew (NPL titled: Owner–Construction Contractor Prime Contract “Red Flag” Clauses), see page 2, [p][002]).
Bui does not explicitly teach renewal term, credit period, penalty amount and termination for breach.
However, Ozkan explicitly teaches renewal term (final renewal term – see section 6, [p][003]), credit period (end of the credit period - see section 6, [p][003]) and penalty amount (general penalty provision – see section 12, [p][001]) and termination for breach (the policy owner may, as well as terminating the insurance contract as one of the possible consequences for breach - see section 10.5.2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Bui of a system for electronic signature having at least one document to be signed, a sender computing system, with the teachings of Ozkan renewal term, credit period, penalty amount and termination for breach.
Wherein having Bui renewal term, credit period, penalty amount and termination for breach.
The motivation behind the modification would have been for creating consumer legislation and constrain user actions available to be performed according to a state associated with completion of the goal since both Bui and Ozkan relate to processing contract documents, wherein Bui constrain user actions available to be performed according to a state associated with completion of the goal while Ozkan for creating consumer legislation in an effort to reflect the principles, rules and developments accepted for consumers (Please see Bui et al (US20180239507A1), Paragraph [0132], and Ozkan (NPL titled: IMPACTS OF CONSUMER LAW NO 6502 ON INSURANCE ACTIVITIES: COMPARING WITH EU LAW), see Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fabjanski et al (Pub No.: 20210314163) discloses a method for maintaining a log of events in a shared computing environment is provided. One example of the disclosed method includes receiving one or more data streams from the shared computing environment that include transactions conducted in the shared computing environment by a first entity and a second entity that is different from the first entity. The method further includes creating a first blockchain entry for a first transaction conducted in the shared computing environment for the first entity, creating a second blockchain entry for a second transaction conducted in the shared computing environment for the second entity, where the second blockchain entry includes a signature that points to the first blockchain entry, and then causing the first and second blockchain entries to be written to a common blockchain data structure in a database that is made accessible to both the first entity and the second entity.
Hun et al (Pub No.: 20210374672) discloses a method involves managing a formation stage of a contract document in a contract management system operable within a computing system comprised of a processor and accessible by involved parties through a computer interface. The contract document is translated to a data representation comprising object components, and a contract object graph is assembled from the object components. A data initiated contract state update is received through an execution environment, and an updated object component is appended to the graph in accordance with the state update via a hash linking process, where the graph is a directed acyclic graph.
Hunn et al (Pub No.: 20200057994) discloses a method involves managing (S100) a formation stage of a contract document in a contract management system accessible by involved parties. The object components of the contract document is obtained (S110). A COG is assembled (S120) from the object components. The COG is committed (S130) to post formation execution. The COG is executed (S200) in an execution environment during a post formation stage. A contract state update is received (S210). The appended object component is appended (S220) to the COG in accordance with the contract state update.
HOLLOWAY et al (Pub No.: 20170331896) discloses a computer-implemented method for processing an asset within a supply chain includes: providing a first distributed ledger maintained by nodes within a first distributed consensus network; providing a second distributed ledger maintained by nodes within a second distributed consensus network; creating the asset by a supply chain first entity associated with at least one node within the first network, and providing a digital certificate uniquely associated with the asset for authentication; creating a first transaction record in the first distributed ledger representing an asset transfer and its associated digital certificate from the first entity to a supply chain second entity associated with at least one node within the first network; and creating a second transaction record in the second distributed ledge representing an asset transfer and its associated digital certificate from the second entity to a supply chain third entity associated with at least one node within the second network.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRAE S ALLISON whose telephone number is (571)270-1052. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns, can be reached on (571) 272-9752. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRAE S ALLISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
February 18, 2026