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 office action is in reply to the application filed on 03/28/2024.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claims 1-6 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs 2-4 appear to be blurry. Please resubmit another set of drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is a grammar issue. If the “e-signature feature” was a proper system component, then the word “that” could be inserted after the “system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Notes: Claim 1 recites the limitation “a processing means” in which a sender employs. “a processing means” could be interpreted as a computing device or any type of mobile device or computing device. Please clarify the scope of the above limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a processing means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “A processing means” could correspond to a mobile device, a computing device, a terminal or a desktop. The limitation needs to be definite to further clarify the scope of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) (Metes and Bounds)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Notes: the claims fail to define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant. In this case, the applicant claimed “an admin, a sender of the documents, a signer of the documents, a recipient of the documents, an input device, an output device, a pre-approved document and a signed document, a network connection and servers” and it is unclear whether these elements are part of the system or preamble.
Claim Interpretation
Since the boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Interpretation: The Examiner interprets hat all elements before the word “comprising” in claim 1 are positively recited as part of the system and not treated as a preamble.
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.
Human Per Se 101 rejection:
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 1 consists of elements such as “an admin, a sender of the documents, a signer of the documents, a recipient of the documents”. The statute expressly prohibits these subject matter from being patented, such as humans per se, which are excluded under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011).
Human elements (in Claim 1’s language) are prohibited from being patents. And therefore, are not directed to any of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Abstract Idea rejection:
Claims 1-6 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: No). Even though the claims are ineligible at Step 1, the claims are still being analyzed with respect to the other steps of the 101 analysis.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-6 are directed to an abstract idea, Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 is grouped together. Claim 16, for instance, recites a system for auto-grouping and bulk signing of pre-approved documents, including an admin, a sender of the documents, a signer of the documents, a recipient of the documents, an input device, an output device, a pre-approved document and a signed document, a network connection and servers, comprising: an e-signature feature of the system uses a processing means for employing a transaction workflow, wherein the admin enables the workflow options, the sender sends a pre-approved document to be signed, using an input device where a signer employs a workflow from the e- signature feature through a processing means and sends the signed documents to a recipient using an output device; and wherein the pre-approved documents are grouped using the metadata field mapping and the signed documents are stored in at least one hosting server; and wherein the system and method facilitates the auto-grouping, individual signing and bulk signing of the pre-approved documents within the same group, using the e-signature feature of the system by following the defined method including either an individual e-signature workflow transaction or a bulk e-signature transaction, that enables applying individual signature and bulk signature respectively, to the pre-approved documents. The limitations are directed to concept of quantifying risk for delivered financial items – mitigating risk – which belongs to fundamental economic practices. Hence, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a system, an admin, a sender, an input device, an output device, a network connection, servers, a signer, a recipient, an output device, a processing means, an individual recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In Alice Corp., the claim recited the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. The Court found that the recitation of the computer in the claim amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The Supreme Court also discussed this concept in an earlier case, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), where the claim recited a process for converting binary-coded-decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numbers. The Court found that the claimed process had no meaningful practical application except in connection with a computer. Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 175 USPQ at 676. The claim simply stated a judicial exception (e.g., law of nature or abstract idea) while effectively adding words that “apply it” in a computer. Id. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device helps for fund transferring transaction is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim 2 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite concept of bulk signing documents based on types recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims only recite additional elements (such as a system, a metadata) are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 3 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite auto bulk signing of pre-approved documents recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims recite additional elements (such as a system, a metadata) which are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 4 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite steps of bulk signing on the network the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim recites additional elements (such as a server, a system, metadata, a network, etc.) which are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 5 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite approving documents and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim recites additional elements (such as a server, a system, metadata, a network, etc.) which are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 6 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite providing alternate workflow and analyzing deposit records and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim recites additional elements (such as a server, a system, metadata, a network, etc.) which are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-6 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Kumar et al. (US 2017/0344245 A1) in view of Savage (US 2013/0097115 A1) in further view of Malcolm et al. (US 2009/0300527 A1).
Claim 1 is disclosed: Kumar teaches: A system for auto-grouping and bulk signing of pre-approved documents, including an admin, a sender of the documents, a signer of the documents, a recipient of the documents, an input device, an output device, a pre-approved document and a signed document, a network connection and servers (Kumar, par. [0039]) sets of devices and servers, comprising:
an e-signature feature of the system uses a processing means for employing a transaction workflow, wherein the admin enables the workflow options (Kumar, see at least par. [0024] “Online electronic signature service provider: a service provider that provides electronic signature services to facilitate execution of an E-document and supports activities to organize, facilitate, and execute or enable execution of an E-signing workflow and collects and evaluates relevant information associated therewith”, the sender sends a pre-approved document to be signed (par. [0025] “Document sender: a party to and signer of an E-document; the document sender is typically a provider of some type of good or service or some other subject matter that is the subject of the contractual agreement defined by the E-document.”) , using an input device where a signer employs a workflow from the e- signature feature through a processing means and sends the signed documents to a recipient using an output device ([0026] “Document signer: a party to and signer of an E-document; the document signer is typically a consumer of the good or service or other subject matter that is the subject of the contractual agreement defined by the E-document.” & [0027] “Third-party: when present, a participant in the process by which an E-document is signed by the document signer”); and
Kumar does not disclose the following; however, Savage teaches:
wherein the pre-approved documents are grouped (Savage, par. [0027] “A workspace can generally refer to any grouping of a set of digital content in the collaboration platform. In general, the content management system permits a user to group stored files in a hierarchical manner, such that a workspace made up of a group of files can be contained within another workspace, such as a folder. The grouping can be created, identified, or specified by a user or through other means. This user may be a creator user or administrative user, for example. The workspace can also include an online discussion area for collaborators to engage in an online discussion”) using the metadata field mapping and the signed documents are stored in at least one hosting server (par. [0055] “The host server 100 performs cloud-based enterprise content management services (ECM). In one embodiment, the host server 100 can connect with other client on-premise ECMs with traditional content platforms, for example, SharePoint or Documentum, to synchronize or transfer data to and from the host server 100 or when migrating content between the on-premise ECM and the host server 100. One embodiment of the host server 100 includes a metadata mapping engine 370 that maps metadata fields between files stored on the host server 100 and the on-premise ECM. Thus, data synchronized between the host server 100 and a client's other ECM, for example, SharePoint, can contain the same or similar metadata.”); and
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of grouping pre-approved documents using metadata field mapping as taught by Savage with the invention disclosed by Kumar to better provide metadata for the work items (Abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Kumar in view of Savage does not disclose the following; however, Malcolm teaches:
wherein the system and method facilitates the auto-grouping, individual signing and bulk signing of the pre-approved documents within the same group (see at least par. [0019] “Bulk operation user interface 215 is directed at reducing the time it takes to review/approve documents. Interface 215 displays a group of related documents together in the display such that bulk operations may be performed on more than one of the displayed documents without requiring the user to individually access each document to perform the action.”),
using the e-signature feature of the system by following the defined method including either an individual e-signature workflow transaction or a bulk e-signature transaction, that enables applying individual signature and bulk signature respectively, to the pre-approved documents (Malcolm, see at least par. [0015] “. . . The workflow application 24 displays a bulk operations command surface 27 through User Interface ("UI") 25 on display 23. For example, workflow application could be an application, such as Microsoft Office SharePoint Designer 2007.RTM.. Generally, the workflow application 24 enables users to participate in a workflow by handling their designated tasks. For example, one or more users may be assigned the role of reviewing/approving submitted documents. In many scenarios, a designated user may be presented with hundreds of documents (including different versions of the same document) to review/approve. In order to help alleviate this burden on the user, related documents are displayed within bulk operation user interface 27 such that bulk operations may be performed on them without requiring the user to individually access each document to perform an action. Properties, such as a status, contributor information, submission date and submission deadline and the like are also displayed with the documents. From this information, a user may decide to open a specific document and/or version of the document for review while bulk approving the other displayed documents . . .”) The bulk approving, or e-signing, can be performed for bulk documents and individual at the same time.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of using e-signature for bulk signing as taught by Malcolm with the invention disclosed by Kumar in Savage to better sign or approve bulk documents (Abstract). Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2017/0344245 A1) in view of Savage (US 2013/0097115 A1) in further view of Malcolm et al. (US 2009/0300527 A1) in further view of Bath et al. (US 2018/0314726 A1).
Claim 2. Kumar in view of Savage in further view of Malcolm teaches: The system as claimed in claim 1. However, Bath teaches: wherein auto-grouping of the pre-approved documents for bulk signing within the e-signature feature of the system is done through metadata field mapping as the system displays a list of meta data fields including, and not limiting to- region, legal entity, business units, document type such as customer contract or vendor contract, transaction type, values and other fields, using a user interface (see at least par. [0121] “n one or more embodiments, the data structures that map metadata fields to pre-stored values may be implemented as a lookup table, such as a key-value lookup table, that maps fields (keys) in events to pre-determined values in the table, and automatically appends or replaces the data values of the keys in the events with the mapped value in the table. An instance or a local copy of the data structure (lookup table) may be stored in each search head and indexer in the search environment. In large deployments or deployments where the data in the lookup tables are referenced frequently, or when the key-values are modified, the lookup tables must be frequently updated and synchronized to maintain the integrity of the data stored”) ;wherein the system groups different contracts or documents based on the selected metadata fields depending on metadata field mapping to the contracts (Bath, see at least par. [0171] “Data models may be selected in a report generation interface. The report generator supports drag-and-drop organization of fields to be summarized in a report. When a model is selected, the fields with available extraction rules are made available for use in the report. The user may refine and/or filter search results to produce more precise reports. The user may select some fields for organizing the report and select other fields for providing detail according to the report organization. For example, “region” and “salesperson” are fields used for organizing the report and sales data can be summarized (subtotaled and totaled) within this organization. The report generator allows the user to specify one or more fields within events and apply statistical analysis on values extracted from the specified one or more fields.”), and displays a list of the groupings done on a summary window (see at least par. [0160] “After the search is executed, the search screen 1000 in FIG. 10A can display the results through search results tabs 1004, wherein search results tabs 1004 includes: an “events tab” that displays various information about events returned by the search; a “statistics tab” that displays statistics about the search results; and a “visualization tab” that displays various visualizations of the search results”) allowing the sender to rearrange the groupings in case of any discrepancy in grouping thereby submitting a checkbox declaration of approval or validation so as to trigger the grouped documents for bulk sign off process using a workflow of the system (see at least par. [0137] “Once the delta file is received, the delta file is verified for compatibility with the local lookup table at block 604. Verifying the compatibility may be performed by matching an identity of the version of the delta file with the version of the lookup table. In one or more embodiments, the version of the respective files can be matched by performing a checksum operation on the delta file and the local lookup table, and comparing the resultant checksum values. If the checksum values do not match, then the delta cannot be applied to the existing lookup table as the delta has been generated using a different version of the lookup table”) the “check-sum” corresponds to signing off process.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of rearranging the groupings for any discrepancy as taught by Bath with the invention disclosed by Kumar in Savage in further view of Malcolm to better group the documents for signing based on attributes. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2017/0344245 A1) in view of Savage (US 2013/0097115 A1) in further view of Malcolm et al. (US 2009/0300527 A1) in further view of Weald et al. (US 2015/0154660 A1).
Claim 3. Kumar in view of Savage in further view of Malcolm teaches: The system as claimed in claim 1. However, Wead teaches: wherein the system provides auto-grouping of pre- approved documents based on metadata field mapping, provides flexibility in grouping of documents, allows changing of the documents to different groups, allows application of alternative workflows including individual document signing and bulk signing based on user requirement thereby providing a time-saving, effortless and one-click-transaction approach over the individual signing through separate links in emails, allowing signing of all documents within a group simultaneously (Weald, par. [0079] “In some embodiments, multiple supplemental items may be inserted into a single document. In an embodiment, the multiple supplemental items may be inserted over multiple instantiations of flow 400. Block 420 may or may not be repeated for each of these instantiations. In another embodiment, multiple supplemental items and insertion points may be selected in a single instantiation of flow 400. For example, multiple supplemental items and multiple insertion points may be returned along with a common supplemental item template, in response to a single request from a client to insert items into a web page. In yet another embodiment, a document may comprise multiple groups of content items into which supplemental items are to be inserted, the content items in each group having a different common structure type. Therefore, multiple supplemental item templates are identified in addition to the multiple supplemental items”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of allowing shuffling of the documents as taught by Wead with the invention disclosed by Kumar in Savage in further view of Malcolm to better group the documents for signing based on attributes. Therefore, the combination is obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 do not have art applied to the currently. However, other rejections are still outstanding such as the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101; 35 U.S.C. 103, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of withdrawing art: enabling bulk signing option using network, selecting workflow by the sender, selecting the e-signature feature, selecting individual e-signature workflow transaction, reviewing the e-signature and performing the steps based on the electronic features for documents, providing auto-grouping of pre-approved documents, and allowing application of alternative workflow for individual signing and signing of all documents within group simultaneously. However, the claims still do not overcome 101 and 103 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5:00 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, Michael W. Anderson, can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693