DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 2/2/26, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending; and
Claims 9-17 are withdrawn.
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 .
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 1-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and therefore, also falls into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
causing, by a contract platform executing on a server, a first dashboard to be displayed on a first computing device, wherein the first dashboard comprises a first tab, of a plurality of tabs, indicating a plurality of documents, each document having an associated workflow and status displayed via the first dashboard;
in response to receiving a selection to begin a new workflow, generating, by the contract platform, a first document;
receiving, via a second dashboard and from the first computing device, a first input indicating a first approver of the first document;
receiving, via the second dashboard and from the first computing device, a second input adding a clause to the first document;
adding, by the contract platform and based on a determination that the clause requires approval from a second approver, the second approver to a workflow associated with the first document;
updating, by the contract platform, based on the first input, and based on the second input, the workflow associated with the first document and a status of the first document;
storing an updated version of the first document in a database;
causing, by the contract platform, an updated first dashboard to be displayed on the first computing device, wherein the first tab comprises the updated first document, a current stage of the workflow for the first document, and an updated status of the first document;
determining, using a machine learning algorithm trained to analyze documents for compliance with one or more aspects of a legal code, whether the updated first document complies with one or more aspects of the legal code; and
providing, by the contract platform and to a second computing device associated with the second approver and based on a determination that the updated first document complies with one or more aspects of the legal code, a link to the updated first document
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Specification states that the invention is directed to executing contractual documentation. Specification ¶2. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of
claim 1: a contract platform executing on a server, a first computing device, a second computing device, a database, and a machine learning algorithm trained to analyze documents for compliance with one or more aspects of a legal code; and
claim 18: computer-readable media, a contract platform executing on a server, a first computing device, a second computing device, a database, and a machine learning algorithm trained to analyze documents for compliance with one or more aspects of a legal code.
The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the receiving, storing, displaying, and providing limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the displaying, generating, receiving, adding, updating, storing, and providing steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the receiving, storing, displaying, and providing limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec, identifying storing information in memory as WURC, as recognized by Versata, and identifying presenting offers as WURC, as recognized by OIP Techs). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 6-8, 19, and 20 further include the additional element of a third computing device. The device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. (US 20140164542), in view of Poole (US 20210133903), and further in view of Broudou et al. (US 20160321582).
Referring to claim 1:
McCabe discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: causing, by a contract platform executing on a server, a first dashboard to be displayed on a first computing device, wherein the first dashboard comprises a first tab, of a plurality of tabs, indicating a plurality of documents, each document having an associated workflow and status displayed via the first dashboard {McCabe [0034] and Fig. 4; FIG. 4 illustrates a webpage 400 associated with the designated report destination listing the envelopes for which selected events have occurred, and providing several types of exemplar information including the status of the envelope, the name of the person who has signed or will be signing the associated document(s) [0034] where a tab is a clickable area that shows another page/area, where each “EnvelopeID” listed at 410 is a tab which indicates a document, the name of the person who has signed or who will sign is the associated workflow, and the status is displayed as a column in Fig. 4};
in response to receiving a selection to begin a new workflow, generating, by the contract platform, a first document {McCabe [0016][0017] Fig. 2; At block 202 a document originator creates a signing template file that contains information about how a signable document is to be signed [0016]};
receiving, via a second dashboard and from the first computing device, a first input indicating a first approver of the first document {McCabe [0015] [0016]; It may identify other parties that will also sign [0015]};
receiving, via the second dashboard and from the first computing device, a second input adding a clause to the first document {McCabe [0021][0026]; A business creates a signable document that is unlocked (i.e. the content is changeable) for the company consulting agreement, and a signing template with instructions about the signing process, which ensures the company signer signs second. This contract is edited by both the company and consultant several times before it is deemed to be the final copy [0026]};
updating, by the contract platform, based on the first input, and based on the second input, the workflow associated with the first document and a status of the first document {McCabe [0034] and Fig. 4; Upon determining that a selected event has occurred with respect to an electronic document, the web signing server 104 prepares and publishes a report of the event to the destination designated by the user in field 340 of page 300. FIG. 4 illustrates a webpage 400 associated with the designated report destination listing the envelopes for which selected events have occurred, and providing several types of exemplar information including the status of the envelope, the name of the person who has signed or will be signing the associated document(s) [0034]};
storing an updated version of the first document in a database {McCabe [0021];if the sender allows the content to be modified prior to submitting to the web signing server for signing, the entire signable document rather than only the field information is uploaded to the web signing server [0021]};
causing, by the contract platform, an updated first dashboard to be displayed on the first computing device, wherein the first tab comprises the updated first document, a current stage of the workflow for the first document, and an updated status of the first document {McCabe [0034] and Fig. 4; the web signing server 104 functions to monitor the progress of each electronic envelope/document as it passes through the workflow . . . Upon determining that a selected event has occurred with respect to an electronic document, the web signing server 104 prepares and publishes a report of the event to the destination designated by the user in field 340 of page 300. FIG. 4 illustrates a webpage 400 associated with the designated report destination listing the envelopes for which selected events have occurred, and providing several types of exemplar information including the status of the envelope, the name of the person who has signed or will be signing the associated document(s) [0034] where Fig. 4 shows the dashboard}.
McCabe discloses a system for distributed electronic signature documents (abstract). McCabe does not disclose adding, by the contract platform and based on a determination that the clause requires approval from a second approver, the second approver to a workflow associated with the first document; and providing, by the contract platform and to a second computing device associated with the second approver, a link to the updated first document.
However, Poole discloses a similar system for digitized contract generation (abstract). Poole discloses adding, by the contract platform and based on a determination that the clause requires approval from a second approver, the second approver to a workflow associated with the first document {Poole [0057][0058][0066][0067]; Users may be assigned permissions to specify which contracts (or parts thereof) to make accessible. Users may be provided with alerts as to status changes (e.g., state transitions through a life-cycle) for such contracts. The assigned user roles may also be used to determine which users will take action on the contract. Select users may be assigned as originators, reviewers, editors, approvers, signatories, etc. [0058] and The revisions may be done by editing text, importing or adding terms, changing party information, adding users (e.g., reviewers, approvers, signatories, etc.) as previously described [0066]}; and
providing, by the contract platform and to a second computing device associated with the second approver [and based on a determination that the updated first document complies with one or more aspects of the legal code], a link to the updated first document {Poole [0065]-[0067]; To access specific contracts within the colocation, the user may be provided with access via a link, and/or specified passwords, keys, and/or other security credentials specific an individual contract [0065] where the portion of the claim in brackets is not taught by Poole, but is addressed below}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in McCabe to incorporate adding the second approver and providing a link to the updated document as taught by Poole because this would provide a manner for handling digital document negotiations between parties (Poole [0018]), thus aiding the user by facilitating agreements.
McCabe, as modified by Poole, discloses a system for distributed electronic signature documents (abstract). McCabe, as modified by Poole, does not disclose determining, using a machine learning algorithm trained to analyze documents for compliance with one or more aspects of a legal code, whether the updated first document complies with one or more aspects of the legal code; and providing, based on a determination that the updated first document complies with one or more aspects of the legal code, the updated first document.
However, Broudou discloses a similar system for determining compliance with predetermined regulations or rules (abstract). Broudou discloses determining, using a machine learning algorithm trained to analyze documents for compliance with one or more aspects of a legal code, whether the updated first document complies with one or more aspects of the legal code {Broudou [0042][0045][0075][0076][00112][0127][0131]-[0133][0149]; The system may be further configured to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that a portion of the document is misleading, contains jargon or complex industry terms or whether the document complies with at least one set of standards or regulatory rules [0042] and New rules or modifications to existing rules may improve the system's ability to detect non-compliant or high risk data. The new rules may optionally be compared with the test bench before being implemented by the system to increase the potential for the new rules to be valid and increase the potential for detection of non-compliance. In this way the system preferably allows a ‘semi-supervised’, or human moderated, machine learning and/or an ‘unsupervised’, or machine-learning based, automated learning and optimization loops [0133]}; and
providing, based on a determination that the updated first document complies with one or more aspects of the legal code, the updated first document {Broudou [0198]-[0201]; The system then checks the provisional publication for compliance 630 and generates a compliance report. The compliance report may then be reviewed by a user 635 and the user may optionally edit the content 633 and conduct a further compliance check 630 [0198] and The accepted provisional publication may then be optionally published as a content item 670 [0200]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in McCabe and Poole to incorporate using machine learning to analyze documents for compliance and based on a determination that the document complies, providing the document as taught by Broudou because this would provide a manner for increasing the potential of detection of non-compliance (Broudou [0133]), thus aiding the user by ensuring a document is in compliance with legal requirements prior to publishing the document.
Referring to claim 4:
McCabe, as modified by Poole and Broudou, discloses wherein the first input comprises an indication of an authorized signer associated with the first document {McCabe [0016][0019]; The signing template file may include but is not limited to the location of signatures and initials for one or more signers; linkage between form fields in the actual document; information to be used to notify or authenticate the signer [0016]}.
Referring to claim 8:
McCabe, as modified by Poole and Broudou, discloses providing, by the contract platform to a third computing device associated with the first approver and based on a determination that the second approver approved the clause, a link to the updated first document {Poole [0065]-[0067]; To access specific contracts within the colocation, the user may be provided with access via a link, and/or specified passwords, keys, and/or other security credentials specific an individual contract [0065] and Receiving alterations may involve allowing a user to review the draft contract (e.g., terms, remarks, comments, compare docs), enter alterations (e.g., revisions, comments) to the draft contract, submit the revised draft contract for additional internal/external review, and approve or reject the revised draft contract [0066]}.
Referring to claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. (US 20140164542), in view of Poole (US 20210133903), in view of Broudou et al. (US 20160321582), and further in view of Rajkumar et al. (US 20080306894).
Referring to claim 2:
McCabe, as modified by Poole and Broudou, discloses a system for distributed electronic signature documents (abstract). McCabe, as modified by Poole and Broudou, does not disclose wherein generating the first document further comprises receiving a selection of a draft template for the new workflow.
However, Rajkumar discloses a similar system for providing business document templates used to generate business documents including contracts (abstract). Rajkumar discloses wherein generating the first document further comprises receiving a selection of a draft template for the new workflow {Rajkumar [0029]; As shown in FIG. 2, reference S11 calls for the user to select a business document template 102 from among a plurality of available business document templates [0029]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in McCabe, Poole, and Broudou to incorporate receiving a selection of a draft template as taught by Rajkumar because this would provide a manner for authoring customized business documents (Rajkumar [0029]), thus aiding the user by facilitating document creation.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. (US 20140164542), in view of Poole (US 20210133903), in view of Broudou et al. (US 20160321582), and further in view of Al-Kofahi et al. (US 20120036125).
Referring to claim 3:
McCabe, as modified by Poole and Broudou, discloses a system for distributed electronic signature documents (abstract). McCabe, as modified by Poole and Broudou, does not disclose storing the updated version of the first document as a template in the database.
However, storing the updated version of the first document as a template in the database {Al-Kofahi [0097]-[0100]; The portion of the LSS that facilitates integration of the word processing host application and a research and litigation support features may be called a "Drafting Assistant.” [0097] and The Drafting Assistant System includes an organizational group labeled "Templates/Model Documents" for storing documents not originating in Case Notebook [0099]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in McCabe, Poole, and Broudou, to incorporate receiving a selection of a draft template as taught by Al-Kofahi because this would provide a manner for importing documents (Al-Kofahi [0097]), thus aiding the user by facilitating document creation.
Claims 5, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. (US 20140164542), in view of Poole (US 20210133903), in view of Broudou et al. (US 20160321582), and further in view of Subramaniam et al. (US 20080243662).
Referring to claim 5:
McCabe, as modified by Poole and Broudou, discloses a system for distributed electronic signature documents (abstract). McCabe, as modified by Poole and Broudou, does not disclose wherein the second input comprise one or more of: a selection of governing law or any other type of field or constraint controlling the first document; an addition of a conditional variable to the first document, wherein the conditional variable is configured to acquire a value based on an input from a remote user or the approver; an addition of a portion of the contract based on a value of the conditional variable in the first document; a removal of the portion of the contract based on the value of the conditional variable in the first document; or a modification of a role for the approver.
However, Subramaniam discloses a similar system for electronic contracting (abstract). Subramaniam discloses wherein the second input comprise one or more of: a selection of governing law or any other type of field or constraint controlling the first document; an addition of a conditional variable to the first document, wherein the conditional variable is configured to acquire a value based on an input from a remote user or the approver; an addition of a portion of the contract based on a value of the conditional variable in the first document; a removal of the portion of the contract based on the value of the conditional variable in the first document; or a modification of a role for the approver {Subramaniam [0029][0035]; Each finance source may be responsible for creating its own contract forms and ancillary documents and ensuring that each is accurate and compliant with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. The e-contracting application 112 may access these forms as required for e-contracting from FS profiles 210. For each applicable deal type, the finance source may identify the contract forms to be used. For example, the deal type may determined based on the six deal type parameters selected by the dealer: finance source, application type (e.g., individual, individual with co-buyer), transaction type (e.g., retail), product type (e.g., simple interest, actuarial), state, and sale class (e.g., new, used) [0035]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in McCabe, Poole, and Broudou to incorporate receiving a selection of governing law or other constraint controlling the document as taught by Subramaniam because this would provide a manner for ensuring the contracts are compliant with applicable laws and regulations (Subramaniam [0035]), thus aiding the user by helping to ensure the validity of the contract.
Referring to claim 6:
McCabe, as modified by Poole and Broudou, discloses providing, by the contract platform and to a third computing device associated with a counterparty signer, a final version of the first document in response to receiving a first approval from the second computing device associated with the approver, wherein the first approval comprises a first signature and [a first certificate]; based on receiving a second approval of the final version of the first document from the third computing device, generating a signed copy of the final version of the first document, wherein the second approval comprises a second signature and [a second certificate]; and storing the signed copy of the final version of the first document {McCabe [0016][0021][0025][0026] [0034]; A business creates a signable document that is unlocked (i.e. the content is changeable) for the company consulting agreement, and a signing template with instructions about the signing process, which ensures the company signer signs second. This contract is edited by both the company and consultant several times before it is deemed to be the final copy. Once the final copy is reached, either party may click the "Submit for Signature" link or button and the web signing server manages the signing process [0026] where McCabe does not discloses the first and second certificates; however, this is addressed further below}.
McCabe, as modified by Poole and Broudou, discloses a system for distributed electronic signature documents (abstract). McCabe, as modified by Poole and Broudou, does not disclose a first certificate and a second certificate.
However, Subramaniam discloses a similar system for electronic contracting (abstract). Subramaniam discloses a first certificate and a second certificate {Subramaniam [0040][0041][0052]; storing in a database the digitally signed e-contract package and one or more digital certificates associated with digital signatures [0052]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in McCabe, Poole, and Broudou to incorporate certificates as taught by Subramaniam because this would provide a manner for identifying the contract as an authoritative copy (Subramaniam [0040]), thus aiding the user by helping to ensure the validity of the contract.
Referring to claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 6.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. (US 20140164542), in view of Poole (US 20210133903), in view of Broudou et al. (US 20160321582), in view of Subramaniam et al. (US 20080243662), and further in view of Wallace et al. (US 20170004473).
Referring to claim 7:
McCabe, as modified by Poole, Broudou, and Subramaniam, discloses a system for distributed electronic signature documents (abstract). McCabe, as modified by Poole, Broudou, and Subramaniam, does not disclose causing, by the contract platform, the signed copy of the final version of the first document to be displayed via a second tab of the first dashboard.
However, Wallace discloses a similar system for facilitating transactions, such as sales and lease transactions (abstract and [0002]). Wallace discloses causing, by the contract platform, the signed copy of the final version of the first document to be displayed via a second tab of the first dashboard {Wallace [0285]; The tabs may include, but need not be limited to a listing of forms that the customer has previously signed, with links to view to individual forms [0285]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in McCabe, Poole, Broudou, and Subramaniam to incorporate displaying documents via tabs as taught by Wallace because this would provide a manner for accessing stored customer data (Wallace [0285), thus aiding the user by allowing access to desired data.
Referring to claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea of a commercial or legal interaction, but to “technical details that allow a computing device to manage the creation and execution of a contractual workflow and create action items for users to review, while ensuring that the document complies with applicable law.” Remarks 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant does not identify any technical details beyond, at most, a generic “computing device.” Further, the invention recited, the management and execution of a contractual workflow and creation of action items for users to review, while ensuring that the document complies with applicable law, is an abstract idea which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activities grouping.
Applicant then argues that the claims are provide a practical application of the abstract idea, in that they describe “improved interfaces for the centralized verification management, and processing of contractual workflows.” Remarks 10-11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to be arguing that the improvement in technology is the alleged “improved interfaces.” However, Applicant does not identify exactly how the interfaces are improved over conventional interfaces. Further, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this case, the specification, at most, sets forth the alleged improvement to interfaces in a conclusory manner. There are no technical details regarding the manner in which the alleged improvement to interfaces is improved.
Applicant then argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims “operate in a non-conventional and non-generic way” and recites several limitations. Remarks 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not provide evidence regarding how these limitations operate in a non-conventional and non-generic way. Applicant provides only unsupported attorney argument regarding the instant invention’s similarity to BASCOM. Examiner respectfully disagree that the invention is similar to BASCOM, which was directed to a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering internet content, unlike the instant invention, which, as stated by Applicant, is directed to the management and execution of a contractual workflow and creation of action items for users to review, while ensuring that the document complies with applicable law.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the claimed amendments. Examiner has provided new art in response to the amendments (see above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626