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 .
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting Rejection
The Examiner agrees to Applicant’s request to hold the double patenting rejection in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previously raised rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) to claims 19-21 have been overcome by Applicant’s amendment and are therefore withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
First of all, Applicant argues that none of Walker, Lane, or Suzuki discloses or suggests checking a user account for an absent vital document and conditionally prompting the user to upload one.
(Remarks, page 2 and page 3, ¶ 1)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/1/2026, directed at the amended claims submitted on 9/1/2026 were considered, but are moot in view of new rejections made below in response to the latest amendments by applicant.
Additionally, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
operational contexts, user roles, and access architectures of Walker and Lane are categorically different, and would find no reason to graft Lane's compliance restriction onto Walker's personal vault display.
(Remarks, page 3 and page 4, ¶ 1)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Analogous art is not limited to references in the field of endeavor of the invention, but also includes references that would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as useful for applicant’s purpose. Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp. The scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly and includes references that are reasonably pertinent to the problem that the inventor was trying to solve. Claim 1 recites a method for storing a vital document comprising the step of displaying the vital document in a view-only mode. Lane discloses displaying a birth certificate in a view-only mode. One of ordinary skill in the vital document storage art faced with a problem of ensuring the integrity of the stored vital document would look to the solutions of others faced with document integrity problems, and therefore Lane was in an analogous art.
Additionally, Applicant argues the following:
“A person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to discard or overlay Walker's architecturally integrated decryption sharing mechanism with Suzuki's one-time URL/password system. Walker's sharing architecture is functionally complete and consistent with its encryption design. Attempting to combine Suzuki's one-time URL mechanism with Walker would require redesigning Walker's managed-key infrastructure. Specifically, the modification of Walker's reliance on Access Control List controlled proxy decryption to accommodate a stateless, one- time-link delivery paradigm from an unrelated institutional batch-processing system is incompatible. The Office refers to "secure sharing" benefits, but does not explain why a POSITA would abandon Walker's existing, fully functional sharing architecture in favor of Suzuki's mechanism. A general desire for security does not supply the specific motivation required to combine references from different operational domains to modify an architecturally integrated system. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).”
(Remarks, page 4 and page 5, ¶ 1)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. As long as the result of substituting Walker’s Access Control List controlled proxy decryption with Suzuki’s recipient-specific one- time distribution scheme is predictable, a POSITA would find such a substitution obvious. In addition, because both Suzuki and Walker teach sharing documents in document vaults, integrating Walker with Suzuki by substituting the document sharing method of Walker with the mechanism of sharing the at least one document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link associated with the stored document in encrypted cloud storage taught by Suzuki requires no significant system redesign.
Next, Applicant argues the following: “None of Walker, Lane and Suzuki teach the checking and prompting limitations as required in the pending claims. Thus, the Office has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.”
(Remarks, page 5, ¶ 2)
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/1/2026, directed at the amended claims submitted on 9/1/2026 were considered, but are moot in view of new rejections made below using Pang (CN 106971341A) in response to the latest amendments by applicant.
Finally, Applicant argues the following:
“Second, as to reasonable pertinence: the particular problem solved by the claimed invention is the secure, user-authorized storage and controlled sharing of vital identity documents in an encrypted cloud environment. Badger addresses the problem of preventing ticket fraud and unauthorized venue entry. A person of ordinary skill in the document storage and vault field would not look to an event ticketing system for guidance on account authentication logic, document encryption, or secure document sharing. The problems, operational environments, and architectures are categorically different.
Because Badger is non-analogous to the claimed invention, its addition to the combination does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness for claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14.”
(Remarks, page 5, last ¶ - page 6, 2)
The Examiner respectfully responds: Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 3 recites “[t]he method of claim 1 further comprising determining whether the account exists and wherein if the account exists, the processor processes the login further.” Claim 4 recites “[t]he method of claim 3, wherein, if the account does not exist, the processor proposes to the user to create a new account.” Therefore, the particular problem solved by the claimed inventions contained in claims 3 and 4 is the account-existence check and new-account creation proposal, not secure, user-authorized storage and controlled sharing of vital identity documents in an encrypted cloud environment. Since Badger also discloses account-existence check and new-account creation proposal, it is of reasonable pertinence and analogous to the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Remarks states in pages 1 and 2 that claim 6 requires two steps: (1) "checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user"; and (2) "if the user had not uploaded the at least one vital document, prompting the user, by the processor, to upload the at least one vital document.". However, claim 6 fails to recite these limitations. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner assumes that claim 6 recites the above limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 17/807,285 in view of Walker (US Patent No. 10,108,811).
Regarding claim 1, claim 2 of Application No. 17/807,285 recites A computerized method for storing a vital document, the method comprising the steps of (“A computerized method for storing a vital document, the method comprising the steps of:”):
logging, by a user, into an account (“logging, by a user, into an account”);
checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user (“checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user”);
if the user had not uploaded the at least one vital document, prompting the user, by the processor, to upload the at least one vital document (“if the user had not uploaded the at least one vital document, prompting the user, by the processor, to upload the at least one vital document”);
displaying, on a display of a computer, the vital document in a view-only mode (“displaying, on a display of a computer, the at least one vital document in a view-only mode”);
sharing the vital document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link (“sharing the at least one vital document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link”); and
applying for at least one additional vital document chosen from a birth certificate, passport, and driver's license (“The method of claim 1 further comprising applying for the at least one vital document.”).
Claim 2 of Application No. 17/807,285 fails to recite receiving, via a user device, a vital document from a user; associating the vital document with a user account.
However, Walker teaches receiving, via a user device, a vital document from a user (see col. 18, lines 53-62: “a task that requires the user ensure his family's passports are in order might have links to the Passport item in each of their Identification containers. Tasks created using the Checklist Template wizard can contain links to placeholders for items that are not yet in the user's STORESECURE. By clicking on these links, the user will be prompted to upload an image of each item and provide basic information about them (e.g., a placeholder link to a driver's license would ask for the user's license number and expiration date).”);
associating the vital document with a user account (see col. 9, lines 49-52: “The dashboard event log shows the last 25 actions/events that occurred in the member SmartVault account. Events include additions, modification or deletions of items, uploaded files, tasks, notes, etc.”).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the computerized method recited by claim 2 of Application No. 17/807,285 by including the steps of receiving, via a user device, a vital document from a user and associating the vital document with a user account taught by Walker. It would have been obvious because Walker explicitly discloses that doing so achieves the following benefit: a system for enabling secure data storage into a third party managed electronic vault … provides users with a secure location to store important documents, information, and data including but not limited to various forms of personal identifiable information (Walker, Abstract).
Claim 2 of Application No. 17/807,285 fails to disclose encrypting the vital document; storing the encrypted vital document in an encrypted cloud document repository associated with the user account and accessible only upon user authorization, the encrypted cloud document repository being configured to maintain the vital document in encrypted form and to prevent access to the vital document absent user authorization.
In the same field of endeavor, Walker teaches encrypting the vital document (see col. 31, lines 1-4: “All documents that are uploaded into SECURESTORE are encrypted with military grade encryption and are stored in a simple content management system called Simple File Archive (SFA)”);
storing the encrypted vital document in an encrypted cloud document repository (see col. 22, lines 17-20: “All documents that are uploaded into SECURESTORE are encrypted with military grade encryption and are stored in a simple content management system called Simple File Archive (SFA) on a cloud storage device”) associated with the user account and accessible only upon user authorization, the encrypted cloud document repository being configured to maintain the vital document in encrypted form and to prevent access to the vital document absent user authorization (see col. 3, lines 35-43: “An EV system may also allow the customer to designate third party delegates to access all or a portion of the contents with the ESDB on the customer's behalf. The delegates may only have specific permissions such as viewing or printing specific documents but have no ability to modify or delete such documents, depending on the specific access permissions granted to the delegate by the customer for the specific document”. And see col. 33, lines 7-14: “One of the advantages of this approach is the ability to share files with other family members and authorized users. If a user shares a document with his spouse, an Access Control List (ACL) is setup granting permission to the other user to access the encrypted document. When the spouse accesses the document, the document owner's system managed key is retrieved and is used to proxy decrypt the document and display the document to the spouse.”).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the computerized method recited by claim 2 of Application No. 17/807,285 by including the steps of encrypting the vital document and storing the encrypted vital document in an encrypted cloud document repository associated with the user account and accessible only upon user authorization, the encrypted cloud document repository being configured to maintain the vital document in encrypted form and to prevent access to the vital document absent user authorization taught by Walker. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefits of ensuring the confidentiality of vital documents in a cloud document repository and securing the access to vital documents through user authorization.
Similarly, the following claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following corresponding claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/807,285 in view of Walker (US Patent No. 10,108,811).
Claims of the Instant Application
Claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/807,285
Claims of the Instant Application
Claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/807,285
1
2
9
9
3
3
10
10
4
4
11
12
5
5
13
13
6
7
14
14
8
8
15
15
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Patent No. 10,108,811), further in view of Lane (US 2004/0216039), further in view of Suzuki (JP 6088102 B1), and further in view of Pang (CN 106971341A).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 11, Walker teaches A computerized method for storing a vital document (see Abstract: “Disclosed herein is a system for enabling secure data storage into a third party managed electronic vault that provides users with a secure location to store important documents, information, and data including but not limited to various forms of personal identifiable information.” And see col. 12, lines 63-66: “The Identification aggregate container will capture all important documents related to the user's identification. Default item categories are: Birth Certificate; Passport; SSN; Military ID; Driver's License”), the method comprising the steps of:
logging, by a user, into an account (see col. 7, lines 44-46: “If the SmartVault portal is accessed directly, the user will need to authenticate by entering their credentials into a logon page.”);
receiving, via a user device, a vital document from a user (see col. 29, lines 29-37: “Storing documents in STORESECURE is easy. The user selects the type of document from a dropdown list, fills in the appropriate metadata and then uploads the associated document file. For example, if a user wishes to add their Texas driver's license they would start by scanning or photographing their physical issued driver's license. They would then go into STORESECURE, select the “Driver's License” category and then select “Driver's License US-TX” to specify a Texas driver's license.” And see col. 18, lines 53-62);
associating the vital document with a user account (see col. 9, lines 49-52: “The dashboard event log shows the last 25 actions/events that occurred in the member SmartVault account. Events include additions, modification or deletions of items, uploaded files, tasks, notes, etc.” And see col. 31, lines 1-4: “All documents that are uploaded into SECURESTORE are encrypted with military grade encryption and are stored in a simple content management system called Simple File Archive (SFA)”. And see col. 31, lines 30-36: “The SFA Content Manager is a simple document storage and retrieval system that: … Stores encrypted documents as standard files on a standard file system; Each user has their own repository partition that is separate from other users (useful for disabling, deleting, backing up or restoring of a user's account files)”);
encrypting the vital document (see col. 31, lines 1-4: “All documents that are uploaded into SECURESTORE are encrypted with military grade encryption and are stored in a simple content management system called Simple File Archive (SFA)”);
storing the encrypted vital document in an encrypted cloud document repository (see col. 22, lines 17-20: “All documents that are uploaded into SECURESTORE are encrypted with military grade encryption and are stored in a simple content management system called Simple File Archive (SFA) on a cloud storage device”) associated with the user account and accessible only upon user authorization, the encrypted cloud document repository being configured to maintain the vital document in encrypted form and to prevent access to the vital document absent user authorization (see col. 3, lines 35-43: “An EV system may also allow the customer to designate third party delegates to access all or a portion of the contents with the ESDB on the customer's behalf. The delegates may only have specific permissions such as viewing or printing specific documents but have no ability to modify or delete such documents, depending on the specific access permissions granted to the delegate by the customer for the specific document”. And see col. 33, lines 7-14: “One of the advantages of this approach is the ability to share files with other family members and authorized users. If a user shares a document with his spouse, an Access Control List (ACL) is setup granting permission to the other user to access the encrypted document. When the spouse accesses the document, the document owner's system managed key is retrieved and is used to proxy decrypt the document and display the document to the spouse.”);
displaying, on a display of a computer, the vital document (see col. 17, lines 13-19: “When a review/renew task is created from STORESECURE, all of the associated item's attachments will be copied into the new task. The user can add one or more attachments to the task by using the bulk upload dialog launched by clicking the “Add Attachment” button. Clicking on an image's filename in the attachment table displays a large sized image in a light box widget.”);
sharing the vital document (see col. 23, lines 43-51: “This approach provides an excellent balance of security and convenience, and provides a number of features such as the ability to share documents with other family members”)
applying for at least one additional vital document chosen from a birth certificate, passport, and driver's license (see col. 11, lines 59-67: “If the Item Type defines an Expire Date property, such as passport expiry date, the Review Date common to all items will not be displayed. The Expire Date is rendered as a date picker followed by a “Create Renewal Task” button. Clicking the Renewal Task button will create and associate a new task with the item. This task will automatically be scheduled using the item's expire date, and populated with information about the item to make renewing the item a snap.” And see col. 7, lines 5-7: “we at SmartVault using our own special processes within our integrated product suite will provide effortless renew, review, and reminders of our expiring documentation”).
Walker fails to explicitly teach that the vital document is displayed in a view-only mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Lane discloses displaying, on a display of a computer, the vital document in a view-only mode (see [0151] and Fig. 5: “For example, the employment/right-to-work document system 68 may store an I-9 record with an appended digital image file of a birth certificate in the data base 22, and the collaboraitive work environment 66 may allow the identity verification system 70 to access the stored birth certificate digital image file in order to request the identity verification system 70 to either (1) confirm the authenticity of, or (2) deny verification of the authenticity of the birth certificate. In this birth certificate example, the identity verification system is permitted only to view, but not to alter or append to, the stored digital image of the birth certificate, whereas the document system 68 may store and edit the I-9 record and the digital image file.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to improve the method of Walker by letting the display mode of the vital document taught by Walker be a view-only mode as taught by Lane. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of ensuring that the vital document stored in the document repository is not tampered with.
Walker modified in view of Lane fails to teach that the sharing of the vital document is via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link.
In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches sharing the (see Abstract: “An E-mail which selects a mail address of an application candidate corresponding to discernment information, and includes information relevant to the whereabouts of a document corresponding to discernment information in selected addressing to a mail address is transmitted.”) or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link (see Machine Translation [0084]: “the location information creation means 55 A creates location information including access information which is information on a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) related to the location of the document and a password associated with the access information. The access information is information on a URL for accessing the authentication screen, and the password associated with the access information is a password requested to be input on the authentication screen.” And see Machine Translation [0085]: “The access information may be, for example, a one-time URL that is information of a URL whose expiration date is set to 30 days and the number of accesses is limited to one. The password associated with the access information may be a one-time password that is valid only once. However, the expiration date of the onetime URL as the access information may be set shorter than 30 days or longer than 30 days.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the method of Walker modified in view of Lane by letting the sharing of the vital document taught by Walker be via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link as taught by Suzuki. It would have been obvious because Suzuki teaches that doing so achieves the following benefit: “It is possible to reduce artificial processing, so that documents transmitted from public institutions in response to electronic applications can be transferred to each application subject under a highly secure environment Can be efficiently provided” (see Suzuki Machine Translation [0010]). Because Walker discloses a computerized method for storing a vital document, Walker modified in view of Lane and Suzuki as described above would teach sharing the vital document via email to a third-party recipient or via download to a local device using a one-time, password-encrypted, time-limited link, as recited in claims 1, 6 and 11.
Walker modified in view of Lane and Suzuki fails to teach checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user; if the user had not uploaded the at least one vital document, prompting the user, by the processor, to upload the at least one vital document.
However, Pang teaches checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one (see Machine Translation of the Description, page 18, [0063], lines 759 and 760: “If the uploaded bid document is empty and you do not agree to the release, you will be prompted to click the file upload button to upload the bid document before it can be released;” And see Machine Translation of the Claims, page 1, Claim 3: “Determine that the upload bids file is empty, do not agree with this release, suggesting that you need to click the file upload button to upload the bids file to be released”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the computerized method of Walker modified in view of Lane and Suzuki by adding the steps of checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one document previously uploaded by the user; if the user had not uploaded the at least one document, prompting the user, by the processor, to upload the at least one document, which are taught by Pang. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of automatically reminding a user to upload at least one document in a user account. Because Walker modified in view of Lane and Suzuki discloses a computerized method for storing a vital document, Walker modified in view of Lane, Suzuki and Pang as described above would teach checking, by a processor, if the account contains at least one vital document previously uploaded by the user; if the user had not uploaded the at least one vital document, prompting the user, by the processor, to upload the at least one vital document, as recited in claims 1, 6 and 11.
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 15, Walker further teaches wherein the at least one vital document is available on a Personal Account Dashboard (see col. 9, lines 66 and 67: “The STORESECURE screen is split vertically into three window panes.” And see col. 10, line 20-col. 11, line 8: “The middle pane is the Container Contents pane which displays the items found within the selected container. There are two basic types of containers: aggregate and collection. …Aggregate containers contain many different item types that share a common theme. The items are grouped by category to make managing all these items easier. …Each of the actual category boxes contains an “image stack” and the category name. … If the category contains multiple items, the stack will appear as a stack of images and it will display the thumbnail for one of these items. If the category contains only one item, it will appear as a single image stack…. All other boxes represent items in the category. These boxes contain a thumbnail image for the item, followed by the item's description. If the item does not have an attachment, the system will use a generic document icon. Otherwise, the thumbnail will be that of the attachment that is flagged as being the item's primary attachment. Double clicking on an item will open the primary attachment. If the attachment is an image, it will open in a modal dialog.” The Examiner interprets the STORESECURE screen as a Personal Account Dashboard. Also see col. 9, lines 13-16: “The dashboard home page is the first page that a member sees once they have logged in. The page provides useful information, targeted promotions and advertising, usage statistics and event log”. And see col. 9, lines 30-40: “One of the most useful sections of the portal is the user statics section where the member can see all of their usage statistics “at a glance”. The usage information includes: … Files uploaded this year; Files uploaded this month; Files uploaded this week; Files uploaded today; Total files uploaded”. Also see col. 9, lines 49-52: “The dashboard event log shows the last 25 actions/events that occurred in the member SmartVault account. Events include … uploaded files”).
Regarding claims 16-18, Walker further teaches wherein the vital document is saved in an encrypted cloud drive for the user to use later to verify the user's identity, to verify the user's signature, or to submit as supporting documentation for a government application (see col. 22, lines 17-20: “All documents that are uploaded into SECURESTORE are encrypted with military grade encryption and are stored in a simple content management system called Simple File Archive (SFA) on a cloud storage device”).
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Patent No. 10,108,811), further in view of Lane (US 2004/0216039), further in view of Suzuki (JP 6088102 B1), further in view of Pang (CN 106971341A), and further in view of Badger (GB 2552849 A).
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 13, Walker modified in view of Lane, Suzuki and Pang fails to teach determining whether the account exists and wherein if the account exists, the processor processes the login further.
However, Badger discloses determining whether the account exists and wherein if the account exists, the processor processes the login further (see page 2, lines 19-26: “the processing module determines if a record of the person already exists, then proceeds to provide the person with one or more options to obtain a ticket when it is determined that a record of the person exists. When it is determined that a record of the person does not exist, the processing module proceeds to request the person to create a record and register a personal identification document. The determination of whether a record of the person exists may simply involve directing the person to a login page of an online account, and allowing the person to select between logging into an existing account or creating a new account.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the computerized method of Walker modified in view of Lane, Suzuki and Pang by adding the step of determining whether the account exists and wherein if the account exists, the processor processes the login further taught by Badger. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of making a user login more efficient by only attempting to log a user into an existing account.
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 14, Walker modified in view of Lane, Suzuki and Pang fails to teach wherein, if the account does not exist, the processor proposes to the user to create a new account.
However, Badger discloses wherein, if the account does not exist, the processor proposes to the user to create a new account (see page 2, lines 19-26: “the processing module determines if a record of the person already exists, then proceeds to provide the person with one or more options to obtain a ticket when it is determined that a record of the person exists. When it is determined that a record of the person does not exist, the processing module proceeds to request the person to create a record and register a personal identification document. The determination of whether a record of the person exists may simply involve directing the person to a login page of an online account, and allowing the person to select between logging into an existing account or creating a new account.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the computerized method of Walker modified in view of Lane, Suzuki and Pang by letting the processor propose to the user to create a new account if the account does not exist, as taught by Badger. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably achieves the commonly understood benefit of automating the creation of user accounts.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Patent No. 10,108,811), further in view of Lane (US 2004/0216039), further in view of Suzuki (JP 6088102 B1), further in view of Pang (CN 106971341A), and further in view of Strapac (US 11,308,200).
Regarding claims 19-21, Walker modified in view of Lane, Suzuki and Pang fails to teach wherein access to the encrypted cloud document repository requires a second authentication factor that is biometric authentication.
However, Strapac discloses wherein access to the encrypted cloud (see col. 1, lines 44-50: “With password managers, a user saves username, password, and additional information related to an account in the vault. The password manager in turn secures this sensitive information via a master password to access the vault and sometimes with additional security option to use biometric information such as the user fingerprint or two-factor or multi-factor authentication password.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the computerized method of Walker modified in view of Lane, Suzuki and Pang by letting access to the encrypted cloud repository require a second authentication factor that is biometric authentication as taught by Strapac. It would have been obvious because doing so predictably increases the security of the encrypted cloud repository through the use of unique biological traits for user identification, reducing the risk of unauthorized access and fraud. Because Walker modified in view of Lane, Suzuki and Pang discloses an encrypted cloud document repository, Walker modified in view of Lane, Suzuki, Pang and Strapac as described above would teach wherein access to the encrypted cloud document repository requires a second authentication factor that is biometric authentication, as recited in claims 19-21.
Conclusion
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 ZHIMEI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7990. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm Monday-Friday.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/ZHIMEI ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2495
