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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated October 16, 2025. In the Response, submitted on January 16, 2026, claims 1-2, 7, and 11-12 were amended, and claims 3 and 13 were cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 10-11 of the Response, regarding the previous objections and rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 11-17 of the Response, regarding the previous rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
On Page 11 of the Response, Applicant argues “the claims recite a specific technological Solution….a specific technological process for managing distributed document state in a computer network” and recites the following alleged “Key Technical Features: 1. Precedence score assignment algorithm based on party type and account type data structures; 2. Document information storage architecture maintaining acceptance state data; 3. Query-based verification system checking stored indications before distribution; and 4. Conditional network distribution triggered only upon successful verification.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite a “technical” solution to a technical problem. Rather, managing a distributed document state recites the abstract idea, and the alleged technical features of “1. Precedence score assignment algorithm based on party type and account type data structures…3. Query-based verification system checking stored indications before distribution; and 4. Conditional…distribution triggered only upon successful verification” merely recite the abstract idea. Furthermore, nothing in the claims recites “ Document information storage architecture” or “a computer network” as alleged. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 12 of the Response, Applicant analogizes the claims to McRO and Enfish by arguing “The claims here recite: * A specific data structure (document information storage with precedence scores and acceptance indications); * A specific algorithmic process (querying storage, verifying prerequisites, conditional distribution); and * A specific technical improvement (efficient distributed document management reducing unnecessary transmissions). The Examiner's characterization as ‘organizing human activity’ improperly focuses on the end result rather than the specific technological means claimed. The claims do not preempt all ways of routing documents - only this specific technological implementation using precedence scoring and state-based verification. Unlike Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank… where claims merely used computers to implement an abstract concept of intermediated settlement, the claims here recite specific computer operations that improve computer network functionality itself.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that 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. In Enfish, the claimed self-referential table for a computer database was an improvement in an existing technology and thus not directed to an abstract idea. Here, nothing in the claims recites a task that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans such that the claims enable automation of those specific animation task similar to McRO. Additionally, nothing in the claims recites a self-referential table for a computer database, which was an improvement in an existing technology similar to Enfish.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that “storing, in a document information storage, an indication...” (as recited for example in claim 1) is not “a specific data structure” as alleged. Nothing in the claims or specification describes a “document information storage”that is a particular data structure that is an improvement in an existing technology (similar to Enfish) for “efficient distributed document management”. Additionally, Examiner notes that “querying storage, verifying perquisites, conditional distribution” and “using precedence scoring and state-based verification” are limitations that reflect the abstract idea. Lastly, the claims do not even recite a “computer network”, therefore it’s wholly unclear how the claims recite “specific computer operations that improve computer network functionally itself”.
On Page 13 of the Response, in discussing Step 2A, Prong Two and arguing that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Applicant states “The claims improve distributed document management systems by: * Reducing storage requirements: Avoids storing multiple complete document copies for each party (Spec. [0002], [0063]); * Reducing network bandwidth: Conditional distribution prevents premature transmissions (Spec. [0019]); * Maintaining data integrity: Query-based verification ensures proper sequencing in distributed reviews. This is an improvement to computer technology itself, not merely using computers as tools…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes similar to Trading Tech, it appears Applicant is arguing an improved business process of document distribution (“Avoids storing multiple complete document copies for each party”, “Conditional distribution prevents premature transmissions, “Query-based verification ensures proper sequencing in distributed reviews”) rather than a technological improvement to the network, storage or data integrity itself. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(1) discussing Trading Tech.
On Pages 13-14 of the Response, in discussing DDR Holdings, Applicant further argues “The claims solve the technological problem of coordinating state-dependent document distribution across a distributed network while ensuring prerequisite approvals are verified before transmission….Similar [to DDR], these claims address a distributed-system- centric problem: how to efficiently manage document state and distribution across multiple parties in a network while minimizing redundant transmissions and maintaining proper sequencing.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and note that nothing in the claims even recites a distributed [computer] network, let alone “efficiently manag[ing] document state and distribution across multiple parties in a network” as alleged. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 14 of the Response, in discussing BASCOM, Applicant argues “The combination of: Precedence score assignment; Document information storage with acceptance tracking; Query-based prerequisite verification; and Conditional selective distribution. Constitutes a non-conventional, non-generic arrangement that provides a technological improvement….”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that “Precedence score assignment; Document information storage with acceptance tracking; Query-based prerequisite verification; and Conditional selective distribution” are limitations that recite the abstract idea itself. Nothing in the above features of the claims recites a “non-conventional, non-generic arrangement” of additional elements.
On Page 14 of the Response, in discussing Visual Memory, Applicant argues “The claims recite a specific configuration of computer components (document information storage, precedence scoring system, query mechanism) that enhances system performance by reducing storage and bandwidth requirements. See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 797 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (specific memory configuration enhancing computer performance patent-eligible).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and as noted above, the “precedence scoring system, [and] query mechanism” recite the abstract idea; and nothing in the claimed “document information storage” recites “specific memory configuration enhancing computer performance” as alleged. Rather, the high-level recitation of document information storage for storing an indication and for being queried, merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
On Pages 15-16 of the Response, in discussing Step 2B, Applicant argues that “the claims recite significantly more than any abstract idea through their specific technological implementation: 1. Unconventional Computer Operations (BASCOM, Amdocs)- The ordered combination of: Assigning precedence scores based on party/account type data; Storing acceptance indications with party associations; Querying storage to verify prerequisite approvals; and Conditionally distributing based on query results; is unconventional and non-routine. The specification explicitly contrasts this with conventional PDF-based systems that store complete documents for all parties (Spec. [0002]-[0006]). In Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court held that claims reciting a "specific" technological implementation of a process were patent-eligible even if the underlying concept could be characterized as abstract. 2. Specific Technological Process Improving Computer Functionality (McRO) The precedence-based verification and conditional distribution process is a specific technological solution that improves distributed document management, analogous to McRO's specific animation process that improved computer animation functionality. The claims do not merely recite "apply it on a computer." They recite: How precedence is assigned (based on party type and account type); What data structure is used (document information storage with acceptance indications); How verification occurs (querying storage for prerequisite approvals); and When distribution occurs (only after verification succeeds). 3. Technical Solution Providing Concrete Benefits - The implementation provides measurable technical improvements: Storage efficiency: Eliminates redundant document storage; Network efficiency: Prevents unnecessary transmissions; System reliability: Maintains proper approval sequencing through state verification. These are technical improvements to computer operations, not abstract concepts applied using generic computers. 4. Not Well-Understood, Routine, or Conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)) - The specification demonstrates this implementation is not conventional: Conventional systems send complete PDF documents to all parties ( [0002]) [;] Conventional systems store all document versions ( [0002])[;] Conventional systems lack sophisticated routing based on approval state ( [0006]-[0007]) The claimed precedence scoring, query-based verification, and conditional distribution represent a specific technological advance over conventional document approval systems. In sum, the claims are not merely using generic computers to perform abstract ideas. They recite a specific technological implementation with measurable improvements to computer network operations.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes “Assigning precedence scores based on party/account type data; Storing acceptance indications with party associations; Querying…to verify prerequisite approvals; and Conditionally distributing based on query results” are all limitations that recite the abstract idea. Nothing in the above claim features recites additional elements that recite: (i) a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that provided a technical improvement in the art” similar to that of BASCOM; or “a distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records” similar to that of Amdocs. Additionally, as re-iterated above, the high-level recitation of document information storage for storing an indication and for being queried, merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Examiner further notes that “precedence-based verification and conditional distribution process” is not a technical solution; and that “How precedence is assigned (based on party type and account type)…How verification occurs (querying storage for prerequisite approvals); and When distribution occurs (only after verification succeeds)” reflect the abstract idea. As discussed above, similar to Trading Tech, Applicant is arguing an improved business process of distributed document management rather than a technological improvement to any underlying technology itself. Lastly, Examiner notes that merely reciting “What data structure is used” (i.e., document information storage for storing an indication and for being queried) is not a specific technological solution. Rather it merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Examiner further notes that “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but only 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 that the claim improves technology or a technical field”. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Here, Applicant alleges “Network efficiency”, but nothing in the claims even recites a network, nor does the specification disclose “technical improvements to computer operations” of a network or “computer network operations”. Similarly, nothing in the claims or specification discloses “technical improvements to computer operations” of a storage beyond merely claiming document information storage for storing an indication and for being queried. Lastly, as discussed above, “[m]aintains proper approval sequencing through state verification” reflect the abstract idea, and not an improvement to any underlying claimed “computer operations.”
Lastly, Examiners notes that the prior non-final rejection and this final rejection, have never characterized the additional elements are reciting well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Therefore, while Applicant’s arguments are moot, Examiner notes that the “claimed precedence scoring, query-based verification, and conditional distribution” reflect the abstract idea and do not reflect “a specific technological advance” as alleged. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for reciting “the at least one of the document” in lines 20-21, and should recite “the at least one of the documents” as lines 10-11 provide antecedent basis of “at least one of the documents”. Claims 2 and 4-10 are objected to by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are directed to a method (i.e., process), and claims 11-12 and 14-20 are directed to a computer system comprising processing circuitry (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1 recite a series of steps: creating an account using content inserted into documents as the documents are routed to a plurality of parties, by: assigning precedence scores to the plurality of parties based on party type information and account type assignments; generating a specified distribution order based on at least the precedence scores assigned to the plurality of parties; routing the documents to the plurality of parties by, storing an indication of acceptance associated with a first party of the plurality of parties and at least one of the documents, upon receiving approval of the at least one of the documents from the first party, identifying a respective one of the plurality of parties having a higher precedence score than the first party, querying to verify that all parties having lower precedence scores than the respective one of the parties and assigned to review the at least one of the documents have stored indications of acceptance for the at least one of the documents, and selectively distributing, to each of the parties, access according to a specified distribution order to retrieve the at least one of the document only being distributed in response to the querying verifying that all parties with lower precedence scores have accepted the at least one of the documents; and creating the account… based on at least the content included in at least one field inserted into the at least one of the documents by the parties, in response to determining that the content received from the parties contains sufficient information to generate the account.
Claim 11 recites a series of functions of: creating an account using content inserted into documents as the documents are routed to a plurality of parties, by: storing party information, precedence scores, and acceptance indications; assigning precedence scores to the plurality of parties based on party type information and account type assignments, generating a specified distribution order based on at least the precedence scores assigned to the plurality of parties, routing the documents to the plurality of parties by storing an indication of acceptance associated with a first party of the plurality of parties and at least one of the documents, upon receiving approval of the at least one of the documents from the first party, identifying a respective one of the plurality of parties having a higher precedence score than the first party, querying to verify that all parties having lower precedence scores than the respective one of the parties and assigned to review the at least one of the documents have stored indications of acceptance for the at least one of the documents, and selectively distributing, to each of the parties, access according to the specified distribution order to retrieve the at least one of the documents only being distributed in response to the querying verifying that all parties with lower precedence scores have accepted the at least one of the documents, and create the account on based on at least the content included in at least one field inserted into the at least one of the documents by the parties, in response to determining that the content received from the parties contains sufficient information to generate the account.
The claims as a whole recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial or legal interactions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”.
The claims recite the additional elements of: (i) a document information storage (in claims 1 and 11); (ii) electronically routing (in claims 1 and 11); (iii) a link (access to retrieve) (claims 1 and 11); (iv) a computer server (claims 1 and 11); (v) automatically creating data (claims 1 and 11); and (vi) a computer system comprising: memory (including the document information storage), and processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to configure the computer system to perform steps (claim 11).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements listed above merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements listed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 4-10 and 14-20 further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 11, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 4-10 and 14-20 are also ineligible.
Claims 2 and 12 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea by reciting assembling the at least one of documents, in response to the respective one of the parties getting the access by merging a document template with current field content, including content previously entered by parties earlier in the specified distribution order, such that the dynamically assembling avoids storing multiple complete copies of the at least one of the documents for each party. The claims add the additional element of “dynamic assembling”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the dynamic assembly merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional element merely serves as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Allowable over the Prior Art
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are allowable over the prior art, but subject to the above rejections and/or claim objections. The prior art fails to teach “assigning precedence scores to the plurality of parties based on party type information and account type assignments; generating a specified distribution order based on at least the precedence scores assigned to the plurality of parties; electronically routing the documents to the plurality of parties by, storing, in a document information storage, an indication of acceptance associated with a first party of the plurality of parties and at least one of the documents, upon receiving approval of the at least one of the documents from the first party, identifying a respective one of the plurality of parties having a higher precedence score than the first party, querying the document information storage to verify that all parties having lower precedence scores than the respective one of the parties and assigned to review the at least one of the documents have stored indications of acceptance for the at least one of the documents…the link to retrieve the at least one of the documents only being distributed in response to the querying verifying that all parties with lower precedence scores have accepted the least one of the documents”, as recited in claim 1 (and similarly in claim 11).
The closest art includes:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0276875 to McCabe et al. (hereinafter “McCabe”). McCabe discloses distributed electronic signature documents, where the document originator may create a signable document that is to be distributed to recipients for signing or viewing. The signing template may be distributed via a simple hyperlink back to the signable document stored on a web server available to the Internet/ The web signing server presents a web interface that authenticates and provides the document for signature to the first signer. Once the first signer has signed, the document is routed to the other two signers for signatures before it is completed.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0060965 to Kumar (hereinafter “Kumar”). Kumar discloses processing an account creation, including communicating with an account opening API of a custodian platform to actually open the account within the custodian's database. The eSignature service may receive the submitted forms and present them to the investor for signatures, and the investor may sign the forms. If no errors are found or after errors are corrected the web service may submit the signed forms and process the forms and return an account number for the new account opened by processing of the forms to the app.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0052827 to Waelbroeck et al. (hereinafter “Waelbroeck”). Waelbroeck discloses creating a ranked dissemination list.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0024912 to McCabe et al. (hereinafter “McCabe ‘912). McCabe ‘912 discloses creating a signing template that contains information about how a signable document is to be signed, where the signatures are to be placed, who is to sign, and all activities that will be required to complete the transaction. A signable document is created and is then distributed by any means to a signer for signing. The signer opens the signable document, provides any data being requested should the document have form fields, and initiates the signing process.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0074976 to Hancock (hereinafter “Hancock”). Hancock discloses a collaborative signature system that delivers document templates to signees for approximately simultaneous viewing and data entry including checkbox checks, text input, dates, lists, or numbers, as well as entry of digital signatures by each signee.
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 Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached on 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628