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 .
This is Non-Final Office Action in response to application filed on April 1, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the IDS filed on April 1, 2024 has been considered and entered into record. A copy of the signed or initialed IDS is hereby attached.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 1-20 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 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory category (claims 1-7 a system or a machine, claims 8-14 a method or a process, and claims 15-20 a non-transitory computer readable medium).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
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. 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: integrated into a practical application?
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: 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 11 recites “transmitting, to a document fulfillment service, a request for 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 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, 9-14 and 16-20 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 1-20 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;
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat et al. (US 20160140654 A1) in view of Jeffery et al. (US 20090089315 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bhat 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).
Bhat, however, does not explicitly disclose perform a search for a plurality of documents in a plurality of document repositories based on metadata.
Jeffery disclose searching a plurality of electronic documents using metadata that is attributable to the plurality of documents (abstract; ¶[0027],and [0032]-[0037], Jeffery).
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jeffery into the teachings of Bhat. One would have been motivated to make this combination to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of electronic document systems used in managing and tracking electronic documents’ mortgage.
Regarding claim 2, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses transmit a message indicating that a third document is to be uploaded via an upload interface (¶[0020]-[0025], [0029] and [0058], Bhat); obtain, via the upload interface, the third document (¶[0020]-[0025], [0029] and [0058], Bhat); cause the third document to be stored in one of the plurality of document repositories (¶[0023]-[0024], Bhat); and store information indicating that the third document is available in the one of the plurality of document repositories (¶[0023]-[0024], Bhat).
Regarding claim 3, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses 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 (¶[0023]-[0024], Bhat).
Regarding claim 4, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses 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 (¶[0034]-[0036], Bhat).
Regarding claim 5, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive another request for a different plurality of documents (¶[0037]-[0038] and [0054], Bhat); and perform another search for the different plurality of documents in the plurality of document repositories (¶[0037]-[0038] and [0054], Bhat).
Regarding claim 6, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses wherein the plurality of documents stored in the plurality of document repositories are for non-exclusive use by the application (¶[0037]-[0038] and [0054], Bhat).
Regarding claim 7, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses wherein the request is received via an application programming interface (¶[0026]-[0028] and [0047], Bhat).
Regarding claim 8, Bhat discloses a method for document management, comprising: receiving a request for a plurality of documents that are associated with an individual or entity (¶[0019]-[0020] and [0024], Bhat, requesting documentation needed for loan mortgage); 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 (¶[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).
Bhat, however, does not explicitly disclose perform a search for a plurality of documents in a plurality of document repositories based on metadata.
Jeffery disclose searching a plurality of electronic documents using metadata that is attributable to the plurality of documents (abstract; ¶[0027],and [0032]-[0037], Jeffery).
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jeffery into the teachings of Bhat. One would have been motivated to make this combination to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of electronic document systems used in managing and tracking electronic documents’ mortgage.
Regarding claim 9, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the second document (¶[0032] and [0042], Jeffery).
Regarding claim 10, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses transmitting a message indicating that the second document is to be uploaded via an upload interface (¶[0020]-[0025], [0029] and [0058], Bhat).
Regarding claim 11, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses transmitting a request for the second document (¶[0020]-[0025], [0029] and [0058], Bhat).
Regarding claim 12, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses transmitting a request indicating that the second document is to be electronically signed by the individual or entity (¶[0020]-[0025], [0029] and [0058], Bhat); receiving an indication that the second document has been signed (¶[0020]-[0025], [0029] and [0058], Bhat); cause the second document that has been signed to be stored to one of the one or more document repositories (¶[0023]-[0024], Bhat).
Regarding claim 13, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses extracting text data from the second document (¶[0029] and [0035]-[0037], Bhat); and storing metadata for the second document based on the extracted text data (¶[0029] and [0035]-[0037], Bhat).
Regarding claim 14, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses updating a fulfillment status for the first document to indicate that the first document is available in the document repository (¶[0028] -[0029], Jeffery).
Regarding claim 15, Bhat discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for document management (mortgage document management system of Fig.1, Fig.2A-2B), the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions (Fig.1, Fig.2A-2B) that, when executed by one or more processors of a device (Fig.1, Fig.2A-2B), cause the device 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).
Bhat, however, does not explicitly disclose perform a search for a plurality of documents in a plurality of document repositories based on metadata.
Jeffery disclose searching a plurality of electronic documents using metadata that is attributable to the plurality of documents (abstract; ¶[0027],and [0032]-[0037], Jeffery).
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jeffery into the teachings of Bhat. One would have been motivated to make this combination to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of electronic document systems used in managing and tracking electronic documents’ mortgage.
Regarding claim 16, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses extract text data from the second document (¶[0029] and [0035]-[0037], Bhat); and store metadata for the second document based on the extracted text data (¶[0029] and [0035]-[0037], Bhat).
Regarding claim 17, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses indicates that the second document is to be electronically signed (¶[0023]-[0024], Bhat).
Regarding claim 18, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses perform optical character recognition on the second document; and perform verification of the second document based on performing the OCR on the second document (¶[0032] and [0042], Jeffery).
Regarding claim 19, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses the second document is one or more of: a paystub, a driver's license, an authorization form, or a tax return (¶[0018], [0029] and [0058], Bhat, i.e., this second document is a completed set of mortgage loan documents).
Regarding claim 20, Bhat/Jeffery combination discloses determine a document type of the second document; determine a verification service used for the document type of the second document; and perform verification of the second document (¶[0021]-[0022] and [0034], Bhat).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tezak et al. (US 20210209535 A1) disclose creating and managing statement of work.
Ziraknejad et al. (US 20180300296 A1) disclose document similarity analysis.
Paterson et al. (US 20180068010 A1) disclose systems and methods for sharing documents.
Eisner et al. (US 20170052997 A1) disclose processing service requests for non-transactional databases.
Bacalzo et al. (US 20160328438 A1) disclose maintaining consistency between a transactional database system and a non-transactional content repository for document objects.
Eisner et al. (US 20150134600 A1) disclose document management and collaboration system.
Lee et al. (US 8924414 B2) disclose document management techniques to account for user-specific patterns in document metadata.
Kerr (US 20140207658 A1) discloses payment settlement system with feedback.
Shanahan et al. (US 20050022114 A1) disclose meta-document management system with personality identifiers.
Grefenstette et al. (US 20030061201 A1) disclose system for propagating enrichment between documents.
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
February 10, 2026