DETAILED ACTION
This is Final Office Action in response to amendment filed on May 4, 2026. Claim 11 has been canceled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims, which recite “autonomously determining, for a second document, a fulfillment channel, from a plurality of fulfillment channels, used to obtain the second document” using a “ machine learning model” are directed to specific computer technology that cannot be performed in the human mind. Applicant further contends that the claims do not recite an abstract idea in the form of a mental processes and are integrated into a practical application, namely an improvement in “unified document management across multiple document repositories in document management platform” (response 5/4/2026, pages 2-3). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite the mental step of “autonomously determining, for a second document, a fulfillment channel, from a plurality of fulfillment channels, used to obtain the second document.” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely describes the selection of a source or channel for obtaining a document. The additional limitation of “using machine learning model” does not impose any meaningful restriction on how the determination is performed, as the claim does not recite a particular machine learning architecture, training technique, model configuration, or implementation. Rather, the machine learning model is recited at a high level of generality and is therefore considered a generic computer component. Accordingly, the claim merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer technology and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
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 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental process without significantly more. The claims recite “perform/performing a search for the plurality of documents in a plurality of document repositories based on metadata, store/storing information indicating that a first document is available, transmit/transmitting a request to upload a second document and store/storing information indicating that the second document is available in one of the plurality of document repositories based on the request to upload the second document.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps can be performed manually in human mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim here merely uses the processor “processing hardware” as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
ANALYSIS under Revised Guidance of 2019 PEG:
Statutory Category:
The claims 1-10 and 12-21 are directed to one of the four statutory category (claims 1-7 a system or a machine, claims 8-10, 12-14, 21 a method or a process, and claims 15-20 a non-transitory computer readable medium).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2)).
The claim 1 recites the limitations of “perform a search for a plurality of documents in a plurality of document repositories based on metadata associated with a document, store information indicating that a first document is available in a document repository of the plurality of document repositories; transmit a request to upload a second document, and store information indicating that the second document is available in one of the plurality of document repositories based on the request to upload the second document.” The main core of the claim are searching for documents based on metadata, checking whether a document exists, requesting upload of a missing related document and storing information indicating availability. The limitations, as drafted, are steps or processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in mind. The claim further recites step of “autonomously determining, for a second document, a fulfillment channel, from a plurality of fulfillment channels, used to obtain the second document.” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely describes the selection of a source or channel for obtaining a document. That is, nothing in the claim 1 precludes the processes (the steps …) from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim 1 encompasses the limitations of the processes or steps of searching for documents based on metadata, checking whether a document exists, requesting upload of a missing related document and storing information indicating availability. The user manually use the data and does not take the claimed limitations out of the mental processes, which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea under one of groupings of abstract idea, mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an evaluation, judgment, opinion, observation). (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d)). To pass Prong 2, the claim must apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way (e.g., by improving computer functionality or another technology).
The claim 1 recites limitations or elements (transmit a request to upload a second document and store information indicating that the second document is available based on the request to upload the second document) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: significantly more or amounting to an incentive concept. (See MPEP§2106.05).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? or an incentive concept? No because claim 1 recites generic computer components such as “memories and processors”, and generic actions like search, store, and transmit request. The claim does not recite any specific technical improvement to computer functionality, any new data structure, any non-conventional search technique, any specific architecture. There is nothing here regarding improvement on how computers operate, solve a technical problem in a technical way or limit how the search, determination, or upload occurs. Instead, it is mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, it cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept in step 2B.
With respect to the “transmit a request to upload a second document…and store information indicating that the second document is available in document repositories based on the request to upload the second document”. The “transmitting and storing” identified as insignificant extra-solution activities above see MPEP 2106.04(d)(II)(i.e. receive/transmit over network, store/retrieve from memory) for Berkheimer support of well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidence under MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A). Thus, the claim 1 is ineligible.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected due to the similar analysis of claim 1.
Dependent claim 2 recites “transmit a message indicating that a third document is to be uploaded via an upload interface; obtain, via the upload interface, the third document; cause the third document to be stored in one of the plurality of document repositories; and store information indicating that the third document is available in the one of the plurality of document repositories” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 recites “receive another request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by an individual or entity” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 4 recites “receive, in response to the request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by an individual or entity, an indication that the second document has been electronically signed” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 5 recites “receive another request for a different plurality of documents; and perform another search for the different plurality of documents in the plurality of document repositories” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 6 recites “the plurality of documents stored in the plurality of document repositories are for non-exclusive use by the application” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 7 recites “the request is received via an application programming interface” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 9 recites “performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the second document” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 10 recites “transmitting, for the individual or entity, a message indicating that the second document is to be uploaded via an upload interface.” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 12 recites “transmitting, to an electronic signature service, a request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by the individual or entity; receiving, in response to the request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by the individual or entity, an indication that the second document has been electronically signed; and causing the second document that has been electronically signed to be stored to one of the one or more document repositories” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 13 recites “extracting text data from the second document; and storing metadata for the second document based on the extracted text data” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 14 recites “updating, in a data structure, a fulfillment status for the first document to indicate that the first document is available in the document repository” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 16 recites “extract text data from the second document; and store metadata for the second document based on the extracted text data” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 17 recites “indicates that the second document is to be electronically signed” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 18 recites “perform optical character recognition (OCR) on the second document; and perform verification of the second document based on performing the OCR on the second document” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 19 recites “the second document is one or more of: a paystub, a driver’s license, an authorization form, or a tax return” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 20 recites “determine a document type of the second document; determine a verification service used for the document type of the second document; and perform, using the verification service, verification of the second document” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element in claims 2-7, 9-10 and 12-14 and 16-21 represent a further mental process step. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component, then it falls within the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas. Each additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional abstract idea (mental process step) is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-10 and 12-21 are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 11995131 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claims 1-20 are anticipated by patent claims 1, 4-16 and 18-19.
All limitations and elements in claim 1 of the instant application are found in claim 1 of Du except “receive, from an application, a request for a plurality of documents that are associated with an individual or entity, wherein the request for the plurality of documents identifies for a document, of the plurality of documents, a document source that is a fulfillment channel to obtain the document” have been omitted. Given the fact that the ‘188 invention has broader applications where “receive a request…to obtain the document” must inherently there in order to perform a search for the plurality of documents in the repositories. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the similar limitations as showed in the Claims Comparison Table below as the claims of the cited patent teach every claims of the instant application, as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application. The motivation would have to expand the overall use of the claimed invention at no significant cost.
Claims Comparison Table:
Instant application #18/623,188
Patent # 11995131
Claim 1. A system for document management, the system comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
perform a search for a plurality of documents in a plurality of document repositories based on metadata associated with a document, of the plurality of documents, wherein the plurality of document repositories are independent of an application requesting the plurality of documents;
store information indicating that a first document is available in a document repository of the plurality of document repositories;
autonomously determine, for a second document and using a machine learning model, a fulfillment channel, form a plurality of fulfillment channels, used to obtain the second document based on a determination that the second document is not available in the plurality of document repositories and base on a document type, a document source, or a document attribute variable associated with the second document, wherein the second document is associate with the first document;
transmit a request to upload a second document, associated with the first document, based on a determination that the second document is not available in the plurality of document repositories; and s
store information indicating that the second document is available in one of the plurality of document repositories based on the request to upload the second document.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, for an individual or entity, a message indicating that a third document is to be uploaded via an upload interface; obtain, via the upload interface, the third document; cause the third document to be stored in one of the plurality of document repositories; and store information indicating that the third document is available in the one of the plurality of document repositories.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive another request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by an individual or entity.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, in response to the request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by an individual or entity, an indication that the second document has been electronically signed.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive another request for a different plurality of documents; and perform another search for the different plurality of documents in the plurality of document repositories.
8. A method for document management, comprising: receiving, by a device and from an application, a request for a plurality of documents that are associated with an individual or entity; performing, by the device, a search for the plurality of documents in a plurality of document repositories based on metadata associated with the plurality of documents, wherein the plurality of document repositories are independent of the application; storing, by the device, information indicating that a first document is available in a document repository of the plurality of document repositories; transmitting, by the device, a request to upload a second document, associated with the first document, based on a determination that the second document is not available in the plurality of document repositories; and storing, by the device, information indicating that the second document is available in one of the plurality of document repositories based on the request to upload the second document.
10. The method of claim 8, further comprising: transmitting, for the individual or entity, a message indicating that the second document is to be uploaded via an upload interface.
11. The method of claim 8, further comprising: transmitting, to a document fulfillment service, a request for the second document.
12. The method of claim 8, further comprising: transmitting, to an electronic signature service, a request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by the individual or entity; receiving, in response to the request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by the individual or entity, an indication that the second document has been electronically signed; and causing the second document that has been electronically signed to be stored to one of the one or more document repositories.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for document management, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to: perform a search for a plurality of documents in a plurality of document repositories, wherein the plurality of document repositories are independent of an application requesting the plurality of documents; store information indicating that a first document is available in a document repository of the plurality of document repositories; transmit a request to upload a second document, associated with the first document, based on a determination that the second document is not available in the plurality of document repositories; and store information indicating that the second document is available in one of the plurality of document repositories.
16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to store information indicating that the second document is available in one of the plurality of document repositories, cause the device to: extract text data from the second document; and store metadata for the second document based on the extracted text data.
17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the request further indicates that the second document is to be electronically signed.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the device to: perform optical character recognition (OCR) on the second document; and perform verification of the second document based on performing the OCR on the second document.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the second document is one or more of: a paystub, a driver's license, an authorization form, or a tax return.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the device to: determine a document type of the second document; determine a verification service used for the document type of the second document; and perform, using the verification service, verification of the second document.
Claim 1. A system for document management, the system comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
receive, from an application, a request for a plurality of documents that are associated with an individual or entity, wherein the request for the plurality of documents identifies for a document, of the plurality of documents, a document source that is a fulfillment channel to obtain the document;
perform a search for the plurality of documents in a plurality of document repositories based on metadata, wherein metadata includes one or more of: a document type, or one or more document attribute variables, wherein the plurality of document repositories store documents responsive to requests of the application and responsive to requests of at least one other application, and wherein the plurality of document repositories are independent of the application requesting the documents;
store, based on a determination that a first document, of the plurality of documents, is available in a document repository, of the plurality of document repositories, information indicating that the first document is available in the document repository; determine, based on a determination that a second document associated with the first document, of the plurality of documents, is not available in the plurality of document repositories, a procedure that is to be used for obtaining the second document, wherein the procedure includes:
transmitting a request to upload the second document, and transmitting a request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by the individual or entity; obtain, after transmitting the request, the second document that has been electronically signed; and
store information indicating that the second document is available in one of the plurality of document repositories.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, for the individual or entity, a message indicating that a third document is to be uploaded via an upload interface; obtain, via the upload interface, the third document; cause the third document to be stored to one of the plurality of document repositories; and store information indicating that the third document is available in the one of the plurality of document repositories.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by the individual or entity is transmitted to an electronic signature service.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, in response to the request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by the individual or entity, an indication that the second document has been electronically signed.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the at least one other application, a request fora different plurality of documents; and perform another search for the different plurality of documents in the plurality of document repositories.
8. A method for document management, comprising: receiving, by a device from an application, a request for a plurality of documents that are associated with an individual or entity, wherein the request for the plurality of documents identifies for a document, of the plurality of documents, a document source that is a fulfillment channel to obtain the document; performing, by the device, a search for the plurality of documents in a plurality of document repositories based on metadata, wherein metadata includes one or more of: a document type, or one or more document attribute variables, wherein the plurality of document repositories store documents responsive to requests of the application and responsive to requests of at least one other application, and wherein the plurality of document repositories are independent of the application requesting the documents; storing, by the device and based on a determination that a first document, of the plurality of documents, is available in a document repository, of the plurality of document repositories, information indicating that the first document is available in the document repository; determining, by the device and based on a determination that a second document associated with the first document, of the plurality of documents, is not available in the plurality of document repositories, a procedure that is to be used for obtaining the second document, wherein the procedure includes: transmitting a request to upload the second document, and transmitting a request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by the individual or entity; obtaining, by the device and after transmitting the request, the second document that has been electronically signed; and storing, by the device, information indicating that the second document is available in the one of the plurality of document repositories.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the procedure includes one of: transmitting, for the individual or entity, a message indicating that a third document is to be uploaded via an upload interface; or transmitting, to a document fulfillment service, a request for the third document.
10. The method of claim 8, further comprising: transmitting, for the individual or entity, a message indicating that a third document is to be uploaded via an upload interface; obtaining, via the upload interface, the third document; causing the third document to be stored to one of the plurality of document repositories; and storing information indicating that the third document is available in the one of the plurality of document repositories.
11. The method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving, in response to the request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by the individual or entity, an indication that the second document has been electronically signed; and causing the second document that has been electronically signed to be stored to one of the plurality of document repositories.
12. The method of claim 8, further comprises: transmitting, to a document fulfillment service, a request for a third document; receiving, in response to the request for the second document, the third document; causing the third document to be stored to one of the plurality of document repositories; and storing information indicating that the second document is available in the one of the plurality of document repositories.
13. The method of claim 8, wherein the documents stored by the plurality of document repositories are for non-exclusive use by the application.
14. The method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving, from the at least one other application, a request for a different plurality of documents; and performing another search for the different plurality of documents in the plurality of document repositories.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for document management, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to: receive a request for one or more documents that are associated with an individual or entity, wherein the request for the one or more documents identifies for a document, of the one or more documents, a document source that is a fulfillment channel to obtain the document; perform a search for the one or more documents in a plurality of document repositories based on metadata, wherein metadata includes one or more of: a document type, or one or more document attribute variables, and wherein the plurality of document repositories are independent of the request for the one or more documents; determine, based on a determination that a document, of the one or more documents, is not available in the plurality of document repositories, a procedure that is to be used for obtaining the document, wherein the procedure includes: transmitting a request to upload the document, and transmitting another request indicating that the document is to be electronically signed by the individual or entity; obtain, after transmitting the request, the document that has been electronically signed; and store information indicating that the document is available in one of the plurality of document repositories.
16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the request is received via an application programming interface.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the one or more instructions that further cause the device to: perform optical character recognition (OCR) on a third document; and perform verification of the document based on performing the OCR on the other document.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to perform processing of the document, cause the device to: determine the document type of the document; determine a verification service used for the document type of the document; and perform, using the verification service, verification of the document
Therefore, claims 1, 4-16 and 18-19 of the above patent are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of claims 1-20 of the instant application. It has been held that a generic invention is anticipated by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-10 and 12-21 are allowable over the prior art of record. However, they would be allowable if rewritten in a form that overcomes the §101 abstract idea rejections
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Bhat et al. (US 20160140654 A1) discloses a system for document management (mortgage document management system of Fig.1, Fig.2A-2B), the system comprising: one or more memories (Fig.1, Fig.2A-2B); and one or more processors (Fig.1, Fig.2A-2B), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: perform a search for a plurality of documents in a plurality of document repositories based on metadata associated with a document, of the plurality of documents, wherein the plurality of document repositories are independent of an application requesting the plurality of documents (¶[0019]-[0020] and [0024], Bhat, i.e., request documents via cloud-based mortgage host including plurality of document repositories are independent of an application requesting the plurality of documents); store information indicating that a first document is available in a document repository of the plurality of document repositories (¶[0020]-[0025], [0029] and [0058], Bhat, i.e., indicating database exists in the documentation needed); transmit a request to upload a second document, associated with the first document, based on a determination that the second document is not available in the plurality of document repositories (¶[0020]-[0024] and claim 9, Bhat, i.e., transmitting a request such as electronic notification, including e-mail, text message, or other notification to a borrower's e-mail account or phone number with notification regarding about missing documents still needed by the underwriter, the New Request tab can also list out notifications regarding the loan including any new missing documents to be uploaded and needed by the underwriter); and store information indicating that the second document is available in one of the plurality of document repositories based on the request to upload the second document (¶[0023]-[0024], Bhat, i.e., second database of the one or more databases indexes and contains one or more trigger conditions that trigger the need for the documentation needed by the mortgage’s documents). Jeffery et al. (US 20090089315 A1) disclose searching a plurality of electronic documents using metadata that is attributable to the plurality of documents (abstract; ¶[0027],and [0032]-[0037], Jeffery). However, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest “autonomously determine, for a second document and using a machine learning model, a fulfillment channel, form a plurality of fulfillment channels, used to obtain the second document based on a determination that the second document is not available in the plurality of document repositories and base on a document type, a document source, or a document attribute variable associated with the second document, wherein the second document is associate with the first document.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaasten et al. (US 9361313 B2) disclose system and method for filtering and organizing items based on common elements.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH B THAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4029. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7-4:30.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/HANH B THAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights