DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Interpretation
The claim limitations “in a case that a user needs stamping, the electronic seal functional software is operated to generate a seal pattern onto an electronic text to be stamped; the seal pattern of the paper-based visually identifiable anti-counterfeiting electronic seal comprises a fixed information unit and a dynamic information unit; the fixed information unit comprises one or more combinations of the following information: a seal entity name (1), a seal logo, a seal entity code (2), or a seal type name; the dynamic information unit comprises an associated code of authorized counterpart (4); and the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) is generated through the following method: submitting communication tool number information of an authorized counterpart by an electronic seal operator to the electronic seal functional software; and using the electronic seal functional software to select some or all of the submitted communication tool number information of the authorized counterpart to form part or all of the associated code of authorized counterpart (4), and to fixedly present the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) in a directly visually readable manner within the generated seal pattern or in an affiliated information area thereof” as recited in claim 1, does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. The phrase “in a case that a user needs stamping,” is conditional/contingent limitations with the noted “the electronic seal functional software is operated to generate a seal pattern onto an electronic text to be stamped; the seal pattern of the paper-based visually identifiable anti-counterfeiting electronic seal comprises a fixed information unit and a dynamic information unit; the fixed information unit comprises one or more combinations of the following information: a seal entity name (1), a seal logo, a seal entity code (2), or a seal type name; the dynamic information unit comprises an associated code of authorized counterpart (4); and the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) is generated through the following method: submitting communication tool number information of an authorized counterpart by an electronic seal operator to the electronic seal functional software; and using the electronic seal functional software to select some or all of the submitted communication tool number information of the authorized counterpart to form part or all of the associated code of authorized counterpart (4), and to fixedly present the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) in a directly visually readable manner within the generated seal pattern or in an affiliated information area thereof” as recited in claim 1, steps not necessarily performed.
The claim limitations “if a match is found, the request is granted,” as recited in claims 13 and 14, does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. The phrase “if a match is found,” is conditional/contingent limitations with the noted “the request is granted,” as recited in claims 13 and 14, steps not necessarily performed.
The claim limitations “if matching stamped samples are found, the electronic seal functional software sends sublicense confirmation information to the communication tool number of the authorized counterpart; the authorized counterpart forwards the received confirmation information to the sublicensor; the sublicensor uses the received confirmation information to submit a sublicense qualification matching request to the electronic seal functional software; the electronic seal functional software performs matching determination;” and “if the match is successful, the sublicense permission is completed, and the sublicensor obtains the right to authenticate, extract, or consult the associated stamped samples,” as recited in claims 15 and 16, does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. The phrases “if matching stamped samples are found,” and “if the match is successful,” are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted the electronic seal functional software sends sublicense confirmation information to the communication tool number of the authorized counterpart; the authorized counterpart forwards the received confirmation information to the sublicensor; the sublicensor uses the received confirmation information to submit a sublicense qualification matching request to the electronic seal functional software; the electronic seal functional software performs matching determination;” and “the sublicense permission is completed, and the sublicensor obtains the right to authenticate, extract, or consult the associated stamped samples,” as recited in claims 15 and 16, steps not necessarily performed.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. As such, the claim limitation will not be given patentable weight. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims; See MPEP §2111.04 II.
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.
Examiner notes that output of a “wherein information in the affiliated information area and a main seal pattern are generated and displayed synchronously, and may be printed synchronously onto paper,” (as claimed in claim 3) is nonfunctional descriptive material and patentable weight will not be given as the product merely serves as support for printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. The provided prior art is not required to explicitly teach the nonfunctional descriptive material written in the claims. See MPEP §2111.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are drawn to a process, which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps:
“…generate a seal pattern onto an electronic text to be stamped;”
“the seal pattern of the paper-based visually identifiable anti-counterfeiting electronic seal comprises a fixed information unit and a dynamic information unit;”
“the fixed information unit comprises one or more combinations of the following information: a seal entity name (1), a seal logo, a seal entity code (2), or a seal type name;”
“the dynamic information unit comprises an associated code of authorized counterpart (4); and the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) is generated through the following method: submitting communication tool number information of an authorized counterpart…and …select some or all of the submitted communication tool number information of the authorized counterpart to form part or all of the associated code of authorized counterpart (4), and to fixedly present the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) in a directly visually readable manner within the generated seal pattern or in an affiliated information area thereof.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth placing a seal pattern on a document, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Dependent claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein the communication tool number is a number with exclusive identity-oriented characteristics, comprising a mobile phone number, an email address, or an instant messenger number” that further defines the data from the abstract idea. Claim 2 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 3 recites the additional limitation “wherein information in the affiliated information area and a main seal pattern are generated and displayed synchronously” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claims 4, 5, and 6 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitations “preserves a seal pattern sample, stamped information summary, or stamped text formed after a stamping operation, the seal pattern sample, the stamped information summary, or the stamped text being collectively referred to as stamped samples;” “ authenticates and associates a communication tool number serving as the information source basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) with the stamped samples, or,” “authenticates and associates the acquired communication tool number information of the authorized counterpart with the stamped samples; and by recognizing the authenticated and associated communication tool number information operated by the authorized counterpart,… grants the authorized counterpart the right to actively initiate authentication, extraction, or consultation of the stamped samples of this time or this batch” that further define the data from the abstract idea. Claims 4, 5, and 6, recite the additional limitation “the electronic seal functional software is configured with an electronic seal authentication communication interface;” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claims 7, 8, and 9 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitations “wherein the authorized counterpart utilizes or operates the communication tool number authenticated and associated with the stamped samples or the communication tool number serving as the information basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4)” “make a request for authentication, extraction, or consultation of the stamped samples; and upon receiving the request, …extracts the communication tool number information through which the request is proposed by the authorized counterpart, and determines whether there are stamped samples authenticated and associated with the number information, to decide whether to grant the request” that further define the data from the abstract idea. Claims 7, 8, and 9, recite the additional limitation “establish communication with the electronic seal functional software through the electronic seal authentication communication interface;” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claim 10 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein the affiliated information area is a rectangular information area, an annular information area outside a main pattern of a circular or oval seal, or an irregularly shaped information area” that further defines the data from the abstract idea. Claim 10 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 11 and 12 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein the dynamic information unit further comprises an associated code of stamped sample (3), and the associated code of stamped sample (3) is generated through the following method: during the stamping operation, using the electronic seal functional software to automatically generate the associated code of stamped sample (3), and fixedly present the generated associated code of stamped sample (3) in a directly visually readable form within the generated seal pattern or in the affiliated information area thereof” that further defines the data from the abstract idea. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 13 and 14 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitations “wherein the authorized counterpart utilizes or operates the communication tool number authenticated and associated with the stamped samples or the communication tool number serving as the information basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4)” “make a request for authentication, extraction, or consultation of the stamped samples, with the request information comprising associated information of seal entity, the associated code of stamped sample (3), or a combination of the two; upon receiving the request, …extracts the communication tool number information through which the request is proposed by the authorized counterpart, and searches… for stamped samples matching the above-mentioned associated elements in combination with the associated information of seal entity, the associated code of stamped sample (3), or the combination of the two submitted by the authorized counterpart; and if a match is found, the request is granted” that further define the data from the abstract idea. Claims 13 and 14 recite the additional limitations “establish communication with the electronic seal functional software through the electronic seal authentication communication interface;” and “a database,” which are analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claims 15 and 16 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “a sublicensor of the authorized counterpart submits a request for authentication, extraction, or consultation of stamped samples to the electronic seal functional software; the request information submitted has to comprise the communication tool number information authenticated and associated with the stamped samples of the authorized counterpart or the communication tool number information serving as the information basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4), and comprise one of the following information or a combination of both: the associated information of seal entity or the associated code of stamped sample (3); upon receiving the request, …extracts the communication tool number information of the authorized counterpart from the request information and searches the database for associated and matching stamped samples in combination with the associated information of seal entity, the associated code of stamped sample (3), or the combination of both in the request information; if matching stamped samples are found, … sends sublicense confirmation information to the communication tool number of the authorized counterpart; the authorized counterpart forwards the received confirmation information to the sublicensor; the sublicensor uses the received confirmation information to submit a sublicense qualification matching request…; …performs matching determination; if the match is successful, the sublicense permission is completed, and the sublicensor obtains the right to authenticate, extract, or consult the associated stamped samples” that further defines the data from the abstract idea. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 17 and 18 recite the additional limitation “an electronic seal functional software platform managed by a third-party authentication authority” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claim 19 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein the seal pattern or the affiliated information area thereof of the paper-based visually identifiable anti-counterfeiting electronic seal further comprises associated mark information or authentication communication interface information (5) of an electronic seal authentication authority” that further defines the data from the abstract idea. Claim 19 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 20 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein the paper-based visually identifiable anti-counterfeiting electronic seal is used in combination with identity authentication, electronic signatures, or timestamp technology of the seal entity, seal operator, and all related parties” that further defines the data from the abstract idea. Claim 20 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “the electronic seal functional software” “an electronic seal operator,” (claim 1).
The dependent claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a database,” (claims 13 and 14); “an electronic seal functional software platform managed by a third-party authentication authority” (claims 17 and 18).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “the electronic seal functional software” “an electronic seal operator,” (claim 1); “a database,” (claims 13 and 14); “an electronic seal functional software platform managed by a third-party authentication authority” (claims 17 and 18), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “wherein information in the affiliated information area and a main seal pattern are generated and displayed synchronously” (claim 3); “the electronic seal functional software is configured with an electronic seal authentication communication interface;” (claims 4, 5, and 6); “establish communication with the electronic seal functional software through the electronic seal authentication communication interface;” (claims 7, 8, and 9).
The recited additional elements of “wherein information in the affiliated information area and a main seal pattern are generated and displayed synchronously” (claim 3); “the electronic seal functional software is configured with an electronic seal authentication communication interface;” (claims 4, 5, and 6); “establish communication with the electronic seal functional software through the electronic seal authentication communication interface;” (claims 7, 8, and 9), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely presenting data/information to a user. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “the electronic seal functional software” “an electronic seal operator,” (claim 1); “a database,” (claims 13 and 14); “an electronic seal functional software platform managed by a third-party authentication authority” (claims 17 and 18), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional elements of “wherein information in the affiliated information area and a main seal pattern are generated and displayed synchronously” (claim 3); “the electronic seal functional software is configured with an electronic seal authentication communication interface;” (claims 4, 5, and 6); “establish communication with the electronic seal functional software through the electronic seal authentication communication interface;” (claims 7, 8, and 9), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of sending/receiving, generating/displaying data between machines. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(d). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hackler et al. (US 2013/0297943 A1), hereinafter Hackler.
Regarding claim 1, Hackler discloses an implementation method for a paper-based visually identifiable anti-counterfeiting electronic seal, achieved through electronic seal functional software (Par. [0049], the one or more user terminal 118 may comprise one or more non-transitory computer readable medium comprising processor executable instructions and/or software applications, for example as described above in reference to the dynamic notary system 10), wherein in a case that a user needs stamping, the electronic seal functional software is operated to generate a seal pattern onto an electronic text to be stamped (Par. [0040], the one or more processor 12 may prompt the notary 56 to apply an electronic notary seal 90);
the seal pattern of the paper-based visually identifiable anti-counterfeiting electronic seal comprises a fixed information unit and a dynamic information unit; the fixed information unit comprises one or more combinations of the following information: a seal entity name (1), a seal logo, a seal entity code (2), or a seal type name (Par. [0042], The electronic notary seal 90 may contain information similar to a traditional notary seal, such as a phrase “Notary Public,” the name of the notary 56 to whom the electronic notary seal belongs);
the dynamic information unit comprises an associated code of authorized counterpart (4); and the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) is generated through the following method: submitting communication tool number information of an authorized counterpart by an electronic seal operator to the electronic seal functional software (Par. [0033], If the notary 36 possesses a valid notary commission number with a federal, state, municipal, or other recognized entity, the notary enters the notary commission number in step 38); and using the electronic seal functional software to select some or all of the submitted communication tool number information of the authorized counterpart to form part or all of the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) (Par. [0042], The electronic notary seal 90 may contain information similar to a traditional notary seal - the notary commission number of the notary 56 to whom the electronic notary seal 90 is issued, a notary commission number expiration date of the notary commission number of the notary 56 to whom the seal is issued, a name of a state where the notary is commissioned), and
to fixedly present the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) in a directly visually readable manner within the generated seal pattern or in an affiliated information area thereof (Par. [0040], the one or more processor 12 may prompt the notary 56 to apply an electronic notary seal 90).
Regarding claim 2, Hackler discloses wherein the communication tool number is a number with exclusive identity-oriented characteristics, comprising a mobile phone number, an email address, or an instant messenger number (Par. [0047], The notary identification information 112 may comprise a name, commission number, address, other identifying information, or any combination thereof).
Regarding claim 3, Hackler discloses wherein information in the affiliated information area and a main seal pattern are generated and displayed synchronously (Par. [0040], the one or more processor 12 may prompt the notary 56 to apply an electronic notary seal 90), and may be printed synchronously onto paper (Par. [0045], A print off of an exemplary locked document 97 is depicted in FIGS. 6A and 6B. In general, the locked document 97 includes the unique notarization code 96, the electronic notary seal 90, and a body 99).
Regarding claim 4, Hackler discloses wherein the electronic seal functional software preserves a seal pattern sample, stamped information summary, or stamped text formed after a stamping operation, the seal pattern sample, the stamped information summary, or the stamped text being collectively referred to as stamped samples (Par. [0043], Locking the notarized document, in step 94, may comprise saving the locked document 97 in a raster file, such as a bitmap, jpeg, graphics interchange format (gif), portable network graphics (PNG), or tagged image file format (TIFF) file; Par. [0044], Generating a unique notarization code 96, in step 98, may comprise creating a numeric code, alphanumeric code, hash, binary number series, linear barcode, matrix barcode, cryptographic key, or any other such unique code for identifying the electronic notary journal entry 100 corresponding to the notarization of the locked document 97);
the electronic seal functional software is configured with an electronic seal authentication communication interface; the electronic seal functional software authenticates and associates a communication tool number serving as the information source basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) with the stamped samples, or, the electronic seal functional software authenticates and associates the acquired communication tool number information of the authorized counterpart with the stamped samples; and by recognizing the authenticated and associated communication tool number information operated by the authorized counterpart, the electronic seal functional software grants the authorized counterpart the right to actively initiate authentication, extraction, or consultation of the stamped samples of this time or this batch (Par. [0033], The notary commission number is validated by the recognized entity, as being registered to the notary 36 and being within a valid notary commission term, the notary commission term being the dates between the initial notary commission and a notary commission expiration date).
Regarding claim 5, Hackler discloses wherein the electronic seal functional software preserves a seal pattern sample, stamped information summary, or stamped text formed after a stamping operation, the seal pattern sample, the stamped information summary, or the stamped text being collectively referred to as stamped samples (Par. [0043], Locking the notarized document, in step 94, may comprise saving the locked document 97 in a raster file, such as a bitmap, jpeg, graphics interchange format (gif), portable network graphics (PNG), or tagged image file format (TIFF) file; Par. [0044], Generating a unique notarization code 96, in step 98, may comprise creating a numeric code, alphanumeric code, hash, binary number series, linear barcode, matrix barcode, cryptographic key, or any other such unique code for identifying the electronic notary journal entry 100 corresponding to the notarization of the locked document 97);
the electronic seal functional software is configured with an electronic seal authentication communication interface; the electronic seal functional software authenticates and associates a communication tool number serving as the information source basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) with the stamped samples, or, the electronic seal functional software authenticates and associates the acquired communication tool number information of the authorized counterpart with the stamped samples; and by recognizing the authenticated and associated communication tool number information operated by the authorized counterpart, the electronic seal functional software grants the authorized counterpart the right to actively initiate authentication, extraction, or consultation of the stamped samples of this time or this batch (Par. [0033], The notary commission number is validated by the recognized entity, as being registered to the notary 36 and being within a valid notary commission term, the notary commission term being the dates between the initial notary commission and a notary commission expiration date).
Regarding claim 6, Hackler discloses wherein the electronic seal functional software preserves a seal pattern sample, stamped information summary, or stamped text formed after a stamping operation, the seal pattern sample, the stamped information summary, or the stamped text being collectively referred to as stamped samples (Par. [0043], Locking the notarized document, in step 94, may comprise saving the locked document 97 in a raster file, such as a bitmap, jpeg, graphics interchange format (gif), portable network graphics (PNG), or tagged image file format (TIFF) file; Par. [0044], Generating a unique notarization code 96, in step 98, may comprise creating a numeric code, alphanumeric code, hash, binary number series, linear barcode, matrix barcode, cryptographic key, or any other such unique code for identifying the electronic notary journal entry 100 corresponding to the notarization of the locked document 97);
the electronic seal functional software is configured with an electronic seal authentication communication interface; the electronic seal functional software authenticates and associates a communication tool number serving as the information source basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) with the stamped samples, or, the electronic seal functional software authenticates and associates the acquired communication tool number information of the authorized counterpart with the stamped samples; and by recognizing the authenticated and associated communication tool number information operated by the authorized counterpart, the electronic seal functional software grants the authorized counterpart the right to actively initiate authentication, extraction, or consultation of the stamped samples of this time or this batch (Par. [0033], The notary commission number is validated by the recognized entity, as being registered to the notary 36 and being within a valid notary commission term, the notary commission term being the dates between the initial notary commission and a notary commission expiration date).
Regarding claim 7, Hackler discloses wherein the authorized counterpart utilizes or operates the communication tool number authenticated and associated with the stamped samples or the communication tool number serving as the information basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) to establish communication with the electronic seal functional software through the electronic seal authentication communication interface, and make a request for authentication, extraction, or consultation of the stamped samples; and upon receiving the request, the electronic seal functional software extracts the communication tool number information through which the request is proposed by the authorized counterpart, and determines whether there are stamped samples authenticated and associated with the number information, to decide whether to grant the request (Par. [0033], The notary commission number is validated by the recognized entity, as being registered to the notary 36 and being within a valid notary commission term, the notary commission term being the dates between the initial notary commission and a notary commission expiration date).
Regarding claim 8, Hackler discloses wherein the authorized counterpart utilizes or operates the communication tool number authenticated and associated with the stamped samples or the communication tool number serving as the information basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) to establish communication with the electronic seal functional software through the electronic seal authentication communication interface, and make a request for authentication, extraction, or consultation of the stamped samples; and upon receiving the request, the electronic seal functional software extracts the communication tool number information through which the request is proposed by the authorized counterpart, and determines whether there are stamped samples authenticated and associated with the number information, to decide whether to grant the request (Par. [0033], The notary commission number is validated by the recognized entity, as being registered to the notary 36 and being within a valid notary commission term, the notary commission term being the dates between the initial notary commission and a notary commission expiration date).
Regarding claim 9, Hackler discloses wherein the authorized counterpart utilizes or operates the communication tool number authenticated and associated with the stamped samples or the communication tool number serving as the information basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) to establish communication with the electronic seal functional software through the electronic seal authentication communication interface, and make a request for authentication, extraction, or consultation of the stamped samples; and upon receiving the request, the electronic seal functional software extracts the communication tool number information through which the request is proposed by the authorized counterpart, and determines whether there are stamped samples authenticated and associated with the number information, to decide whether to grant the request (Par. [0033], The notary commission number is validated by the recognized entity, as being registered to the notary 36 and being within a valid notary commission term, the notary commission term being the dates between the initial notary commission and a notary commission expiration date).
Regarding claim 10, Hackler discloses wherein the affiliated information area is a rectangular information area, an annular information area outside a main pattern of a circular or oval seal, or an irregularly shaped information area (Par. [0045], Fig. 6B 90, The electronic notary seal 90 is shown by way of example as a graphically based notary seal).
Regarding claim 11, Hackler discloses wherein the dynamic information unit further comprises an associated code of stamped sample (3), and the associated code of stamped sample (3) is generated through the following method: during the stamping operation, using the electronic seal functional software to automatically generate the associated code of stamped sample (3), and fixedly present the generated associated code of stamped sample (3) in a directly visually readable form within the generated seal pattern or in the affiliated information area thereof (Par. [0042], The electronic notary seal 90 may contain information similar to a traditional notary seal - the notary commission number of the notary 56 to whom the electronic notary seal 90 is issued, a notary commission number expiration date of the notary commission number of the notary 56 to whom the seal is issued, a name of a state where the notary is commissioned).
Regarding claim 12, Hackler discloses wherein the dynamic information unit further comprises an associated code of stamped sample (3), and the associated code of stamped sample (3) is generated through the following method: during the stamping operation, using the electronic seal functional software to automatically generate the associated code of stamped sample (3), and fixedly present the generated associated code of stamped sample (3) in a directly visually readable form within the generated seal pattern or in the affiliated information area thereof (Par. [0042], The electronic notary seal 90 may contain information similar to a traditional notary seal - the notary commission number of the notary 56 to whom the electronic notary seal 90 is issued, a notary commission number expiration date of the notary commission number of the notary 56 to whom the seal is issued, a name of a state where the notary is commissioned).
Regarding claim 13, Hackler discloses wherein the authorized counterpart utilizes or operates the communication tool number authenticated and associated with the stamped samples or the communication tool number serving as the information basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) to establish communication with the electronic seal functional software through the electronic seal authentication communication interface (Par. [0044], Generating a unique notarization code 96, in step 98, may comprise creating a numeric code, alphanumeric code, hash, binary number series, linear barcode, matrix barcode, cryptographic key, or any other such unique code for identifying the electronic notary journal entry 100 corresponding to the notarization of the locked document 97), and make a request for authentication, extraction, or consultation of the stamped samples, with the request information comprising associated information of seal entity, the associated code of stamped sample (3), or a combination of the two (Par. [0033], The notary commission number is validated by the recognized entity, as being registered to the notary 36 and being within a valid notary commission term, the notary commission term being the dates between the initial notary commission and a notary commission expiration date); upon receiving the request, the electronic seal functional software extracts the communication tool number information through which the request is proposed by the authorized counterpart, and searches a database for stamped samples matching the above-mentioned associated elements in combination with the associated information of seal entity, the associated code of stamped sample (3), or the combination of the two submitted by the authorized counterpart; and if a match is found, the request is granted (Par. [0033], One or more processor (not shown) in communication with a communications network (not shown) queries a notary commission number database (not shown) for the recognized entity corresponding to the notary's 36 notary commission number for validation of the notary commission number; Par. [0044], The unique notarization code 96 may also be stored in the electronic notary journal entry 100, where the unique notarization code 96 is implemented as a numeric code, alphanumeric code, hash, binary number series, linear barcode, matrix barcode, or similar code. The unique notarization code 96 may also be used to look up or search for the electronic notary journal entry 100).
Regarding claim 14, Hackler discloses wherein the authorized counterpart utilizes or operates the communication tool number authenticated and associated with the stamped samples or the communication tool number serving as the information basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4) to establish communication with the electronic seal functional software through the electronic seal authentication communication interface (Par. [0044], Generating a unique notarization code 96, in step 98, may comprise creating a numeric code, alphanumeric code, hash, binary number series, linear barcode, matrix barcode, cryptographic key, or any other such unique code for identifying the electronic notary journal entry 100 corresponding to the notarization of the locked document 97), and make a request for authentication, extraction, or consultation of the stamped samples, with the request information comprising associated information of seal entity, the associated code of stamped sample (3), or a combination of the two (Par. [0033], The notary commission number is validated by the recognized entity, as being registered to the notary 36 and being within a valid notary commission term, the notary commission term being the dates between the initial notary commission and a notary commission expiration date); upon receiving the request, the electronic seal functional software extracts the communication tool number information through which the request is proposed by the authorized counterpart, and searches a database for stamped samples matching the above-mentioned associated elements in combination with the associated information of seal entity, the associated code of stamped sample (3), or the combination of the two submitted by the authorized counterpart; and if a match is found, the request is granted (Par. [0033], One or more processor (not shown) in communication with a communications network (not shown) queries a notary commission number database (not shown) for the recognized entity corresponding to the notary's 36 notary commission number for validation of the notary commission number; Par. [0044], The unique notarization code 96 may also be stored in the electronic notary journal entry 100, where the unique notarization code 96 is implemented as a numeric code, alphanumeric code, hash, binary number series, linear barcode, matrix barcode, or similar code. The unique notarization code 96 may also be used to look up or search for the electronic notary journal entry 100).
Regarding claim 15, Hackler discloses wherein a sublicensor of the authorized counterpart submits a request for authentication, extraction, or consultation of stamped samples to the electronic seal functional software; the request information submitted has to comprise the communication tool number information authenticated and associated with the stamped samples of the authorized counterpart or the communication tool number information serving as the information basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4), and comprise one of the following information or a combination of both: the associated information of seal entity or the associated code of stamped sample (3) (Par. [0071], When searching the electronic notary journal 104 for the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100, the notary may locate the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100 by search of the information contained within the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100 by inputting data into a text field for a search or by selecting the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100 from a graphical representation of the electronic notary journal 104, for example. The data input into the text field may comprise, for example, a unique identification number for the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100, the signatory name 106, names or identifying information for one or more of the people listed on the list of people 108 present at the time of notarization, the time and date 110, the notary identification information 112, the unique notarization code 96, or any combination thereof);
upon receiving the request, the electronic seal functional software extracts the communication tool number information of the authorized counterpart from the request information and searches the database for associated and matching stamped samples in combination with the associated information of seal entity, the associated code of stamped sample (3), or the combination of both in the request information; if matching stamped samples are found, the electronic seal functional software sends sublicense confirmation information to the communication tool number of the authorized counterpart (Par. [0071], Upon searching the electronic notary journal 104, the one or more processor 130 may retrieve one or more of the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100 having information matching the search query input into the text field); the authorized counterpart forwards the received confirmation information to the sublicensor; the sublicensor uses the received confirmation information to submit a sublicense qualification matching request to the electronic seal functional software; the electronic seal functional software performs matching determination; if the match is successful, the sublicense permission is completed, and the sublicensor obtains the right to authenticate, extract, or consult the associated stamped samples (Par. [0071], Upon searching the electronic notary journal 104, the one or more processor 130 may retrieve one or more of the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100 having information matching the search query input into the text field).
Regarding claim 16, Hackler discloses wherein a sublicensor of the authorized counterpart submits a request for authentication, extraction, or consultation of stamped samples to the electronic seal functional software; the request information submitted has to comprise the communication tool number information authenticated and associated with the stamped samples of the authorized counterpart or the communication tool number information serving as the information basis for the associated code of authorized counterpart (4), and comprise one of the following information or a combination of both: the associated information of seal entity or the associated code of stamped sample (3) (Par. [0071], When searching the electronic notary journal 104 for the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100, the notary may locate the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100 by search of the information contained within the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100 by inputting data into a text field for a search or by selecting the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100 from a graphical representation of the electronic notary journal 104, for example. The data input into the text field may comprise, for example, a unique identification number for the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100, the signatory name 106, names or identifying information for one or more of the people listed on the list of people 108 present at the time of notarization, the time and date 110, the notary identification information 112, the unique notarization code 96, or any combination thereof);
upon receiving the request, the electronic seal functional software extracts the communication tool number information of the authorized counterpart from the request information and searches the database for associated and matching stamped samples in combination with the associated information of seal entity, the associated code of stamped sample (3), or the combination of both in the request information; if matching stamped samples are found, the electronic seal functional software sends sublicense confirmation information to the communication tool number of the authorized counterpart (Par. [0071], Upon searching the electronic notary journal 104, the one or more processor 130 may retrieve one or more of the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100 having information matching the search query input into the text field); the authorized counterpart forwards the received confirmation information to the sublicensor; the sublicensor uses the received confirmation information to submit a sublicense qualification matching request to the electronic seal functional software; the electronic seal functional software performs matching determination; if the match is successful, the sublicense permission is completed, and the sublicensor obtains the right to authenticate, extract, or consult the associated stamped samples (Par. [0071], Upon searching the electronic notary journal 104, the one or more processor 130 may retrieve one or more of the one or more electronic notary journal entry 100 having information matching the search query input into the text field).
Regarding claim 17, Hackler discloses wherein the electronic seal functional software is an electronic seal functional software platform managed by a third-party authentication authority (Par. [0053], host system 116 may be controlled by a state or federal agency and host system 128 may be controlled by an electronic notary journal service provider. The host system 116 controlled by the state or federal agency may communicate requests for information regarding electronic notary journal information to the host system 128 controlled by the electronic notary journal service provider,).
Regarding claim 18, Hackler discloses wherein the electronic seal functional software is an electronic seal functional software platform managed by a third-party authentication authority (Par. [0053], host system 116 may be controlled by a state or federal agency and host system 128 may be controlled by an electronic notary journal service provider. The host system 116 controlled by the state or federal agency may communicate requests for information regarding electronic notary journal information to the host system 128 controlled by the electronic notary journal service provider,).
Regarding claim 19, Hackler discloses wherein the seal pattern or the affiliated information area thereof of the paper-based visually identifiable anti-counterfeiting electronic seal further comprises associated mark information or authentication communication interface information (5) of an electronic seal authentication authority (Par. [0047], The notary identification information 112 may comprise a name, commission number, address, other identifying information, or any combination thereof).
Regarding claim 20, Hackler discloses wherein the paper-based visually identifiable anti-counterfeiting electronic seal is used in combination with identity authentication, electronic signatures, or timestamp technology of the seal entity, seal operator, and all related parties (Par. [0042], The electronic notary seal 90 may also comprise a time stamp indicating the time and date at which the notary seal is applied to the document to be notarized 64. Further, the electronic notary seal 90 may comprise global positioning system data indicative of a location where the document was locked. The electronic notary seal 90 may be read with an optical reader programmed with software adapted to read the information from the electronic notary seal).
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Khaishgi et al. (US 2004/0153414 A1) discloses a system for managing a seal of certification including compliance with requirements for such a seal of certification in electronic commerce including an online marketplace, particular sectors of an online marketplace and a web site and dynamic display of a media object representative of such a seal of certification and systems and methods for applying, customizing, displaying and administering such seals of certification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights