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 .
Priority
This application repeats a considerable portion of prior Application No. 17/322,825, filed 05/17/2021, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it constitutes a continuation-in-part of the prior application.
Status of the Application
This is a Non-Final in response to the claims submitted on 01/09/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 17-18, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the claims are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Claim 1 recite the abstract idea of providing documents between authenticated users for release of liability [005]. In claim 1, this idea is described by the following claim steps:
enrolling as a user;
generating a code uniquely identifying the user;
initiating an event requiring a waiver with a second party;
creating a Hold Harmless/Waiver of Liability agreement with a second-party.
This idea falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations). The noted abstract idea is also directed to managing interactions between people such as that required during communications when initiating an event requiring a waiver with a second party and creating a Hold Harmless/Waiver of Liability agreement with a second-party conforms to the requirements of more than one party.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
downloading a software application from an application store to a mobile electronic device; and
generating a QR code
However, using a computer environment such as a software application, and a generated QR code amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Providing documents between authenticated users for release of liability can reasonably be performed by pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring a software application.
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and alternatively serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method, computer system, and computer program product that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claim 1 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a commercial or legal interaction or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-20 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claims 2-5 further limits the abstract idea by introducing limitations related to scanning QR codes. Transmitting data via scanning does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea because it is related to a generic computer function. Furthermore, the examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing a limitation directed to storing data in a cloud environment. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of storing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The recitation of a cloud environment merely links the abstract idea of to a technological environment. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by introducing a limitation directed to timestamping data. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of storing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Timestamping data is a process that could be performed manually. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing a limitation directed to multi-factor authentication. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of transmit and validate information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 9, 13, 15, 17-18 further limits the abstract idea by describing the software application. Further embellishing that the application support multiple languages in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 10 further limits the abstract idea by introducing a limitation directed to pre-loading data in a template. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of transmit information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Pre-loading data in a template is a process that could be performed manually, until limited by a software application. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 11-12 further limits the abstract idea by introducing a limitation directed to provide customer support and a network of independent attorneys for consultation. Providing customer support and consultation is a process that could be performed manually, until limited by a software application. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 14, 16 further limits the abstract idea by introducing a limitation directed to enable a user to customize a waiver and determining liability end dates. Customizing a waiver and determining liability end dates is a process that could be performed manually, until limited by a software application. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 19-20 further limits the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing a limitation directed to digital signature verification and data synchronization. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of validate and synchronize information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide high level of generality computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information see MPEP 2106.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 13-15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Saylor (US Patent 8,966,597) in view of Seed (US Patent Publication 2012/0284602).
Regarding claim 1, Saylor discloses a method for providing legally binding documents for liability waivers between authenticated users (abstract )comprising the steps of:
downloading a software application from an application store to a mobile electronic device ([34] In the example of FIG. 6, server 612 hosts one or more applications, including, e.g., application 624. Generally, an application includes a computer program with a graphical user interface. In this example, application 624 is an identity management application that enables enforcement of a condition that an electronic resource can be electronically signed if the signer is in the presence of a companion. In an example, client devices 604, 608 may download a client application (not shown) for interacting with application 624 and/or for interacting with server 612.);
enrolling as a user in the software application ([08] In some implementations, at least a portion of the electronic resource is in a locked state, prior to validation of the received representation of the credential, and wherein the method further comprises: following validation, updating at least the portion of the electronic resource to an unlocked state for entry of an electronic signature; and recording information identifying the second user represented by the credential as the user who unlocked at least the portion of the electronic resource. [14] In still other implementations, transitioning the electronic signature field of the electronic resource from the first state to the second state responsive to validating the received representation of the credential includes recording information identifying the second user associated with the validated representation of the credential. (25) In another example, client device 304 may receive information about the credential from the server. For example, the information about the credential may include a credential identifier (e.g., a number or character string that uniquely identifies a credential), information specifying a type of the credential, and so forth. (39) Server 612 generates credentials (e.g., identified by credential identifiers), e.g., based on information received from credential grantors. In data repository 618, server 612 generates associations between credential identifiers and user identifiers for various users. (40) Generally, a user identifier includes information that uniquely identifies a user. Based on the associations, server 612 may use a user identifier in identifying a credential identifier for a particular user. );
generating a QR code uniquely identifying the user ((25) In another example, client device 304 may receive information about the credential from the server. For example, the information about the credential may include a credential identifier (e.g., a number or character string that uniquely identifies a credential), information specifying a type of the credential, and so forth. Using the received information, client device 304 may generate the representation of the credential, including, e.g., an ultrasonic audio signal representation, an optical machine-readable representation, and a numeric or alphanumeric value representation. Referring to FIGS. 2-4, companion 302 causes QR code 402 to be presented and/or transmitted to client device 104 of signer 102. For example, companion 302 may allow signer 102 to scan (e.g., photograph) QR code 402 into client device 104, e.g., via an optical scanner (e.g., a camera). In this example, client device 104 may transmit QR code 402 to a server, e.g., to validate the credential of companion 302. Upon successful validation of the credential of companion 302, the server may unlock electronic resource 206.);
initiating an event requiring an agreement with a second party; and creating a Hold Harmless/Waiver of Liability agreement with a second-party ((20) In the example of FIG. 3, client device 304 displays graphical user interface 300 for companion 302 to select a type of representation for the credential. In the example of FIG. 3, graphical user interface 300 also displays notification messages 306, 307. Notification message 306 notifies companion 302 that signer 102 is requesting validation of the presence of companion 302, e.g., to enable signer 102 to access electronic resource 206 that can be unlocked when signer 102 is in the presence of companion 302. Notification message 307 notifies companion 302 that another signer is also requesting validation of the presence of companion 302, e.g., to enable the other signer to access an electronic resource (e.g., a sale agreement document) that can be unlocked when the other signer is in the presence of companion 302. Just for clarification Figure 3 clearly discloses the electronic resources to be validated or sign by a second party (i.e. Leasing contract, sale agreement).
Although the Examiner notes that the type or name of the agreement does not change or alter the system ability of initiating and or creating an agreement between two parties and that the specific type of agreement just constitute non-functional descriptive material and does not differentiate from the prior art applied, Seed is introduce in order to expedite prosecution.
Saylor discloses a method for allowing two or more parties to sign agreements and other documents wherein the agreements or other documents are accessed via QR code identifying the users. However Saylor does not explicitly disclose that the event requires a waiver between a first party and a second party.
Saylor does not explicitly disclose:
a waiver with a second party.
Seed which similar discloses a system and method for electronic document certification, wherein the documents are accessed via a QR code, further teaches:
a waiver with a second party ([0025] In some embodiments, document identifiers (e.g., QR codes) can be used to identify and retrieve documents for digital signing. For example, a user can receive a non-electronic version of a document (e.g., such as a waiver form from a school) to be signed. The document can include a QR code or other document identifier which can be scanned by the user to retrieve an electronic version of the document from a server. The electronic document can be displayed on the user's mobile device (e.g., through a webpage). Then, the user can review the electronic document, fill in any required information, and sign the document with an electronic signature generated by the electronic signature tool. [0059] FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating an exemplary process 400 for electronically signing a document in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention. One or more of the operations in process 400 can be performed by field module 225, population module 230, signature module 235, and/or receipt 240. In the embodiments illustrated in FIG. 4, document identifiers (e.g., QR codes) can be used to identify and retrieve documents for digital signing during scanning operation 410. For example, a user can receive a non-electronic version of a document (e.g., such as a waiver form from a school) to be signed. The document can include a QR code or other document identifier which can be scanned by the user to retrieve an electronic version of the document from a server using retrieval operation 420. The electronic document can have one or more user-specific fields (e.g., name, title, address, telephone number, social security number, photo, driver's license number, account number, etc.) that need to be filled in by the user before signing. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to include in the system of Saylor the specific type of document been a waiver since such modification is merely a substitution and a combination of prior art elements known in the art (i.e. waiver type of document) for another (i.e. other types of document/agreement) to obtain predictable results such as allowing a user to retrieve and sign a variety of documents, thereby improving customer service.
Regarding claim 2, Seed further teaches:
wherein the software application enables users to scan venue-specific QR codes to generate tailored waivers at family entertainment centers ([054] For example, if a waiver is required before an individual can purchase a ticket for participating in an activity (e.g., skiing). [0062] FIG. 5 shows an example of a document 500 with a document identifier 510 for electronically identifying and retrieving an electronic version of the document 500. The user can scan document identifier 510 with mobile device 600 shown in FIG. 6. An electronic version of document 500 having one or more user-specific fields 610 can be displayed on mobile device 600. The user can then decide to login and retrieve a user profile with some user-specific information or simply fill out the user specific fields manually.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to include in the system of Saylor the specific type of document been a waiver since such modification is merely a substitution and a combination of prior art elements known in the art (i.e. waiver type of document) for another (i.e. other types of document/agreement) to obtain predictable results such as allowing a user to retrieve and sign a variety of documents, thereby improving customer service.
Regarding claim 3, Seed further teaches:
wherein the software application allows users to scan QR codes deployed at high risk outdoor activities sites to create activity-specific lability waivers ([054] For example, if a waiver is required before an individual can purchase a ticket for participating in an activity (e.g., skiing). [0062] FIG. 5 shows an example of a document 500 with a document identifier 510 for electronically identifying and retrieving an electronic version of the document 500. The user can scan document identifier 510 with mobile device 600 shown in FIG. 6. An electronic version of document 500 having one or more user-specific fields 610 can be displayed on mobile device 600. The user can then decide to login and retrieve a user profile with some user-specific information or simply fill out the user specific fields manually.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to include in the system of Saylor the specific type of document been a waiver since such modification is merely a substitution and a combination of prior art elements known in the art (i.e. waiver type of document) for another (i.e. other types of document/agreement) to obtain predictable results such as allowing a user to retrieve and sign a variety of documents, thereby improving customer service.
Regarding claim 4, Saylor discloses:
enabling users involved in a car accident to exchange information by scanning each other’s QR codes and generating a legally binding agreement (See Figures 3-4 and (25) In another example, client device 304 may receive information about the credential from the server. For example, the information about the credential may include a credential identifier (e.g., a number or character string that uniquely identifies a credential), information specifying a type of the credential, and so forth. Using the received information, client device 304 may generate the representation of the credential, including, e.g., an ultrasonic audio signal representation, an optical machine-readable representation, and a numeric or alphanumeric value representation. Referring to FIGS. 2-4, companion 302 causes QR code 402 to be presented and/or transmitted to client device 104 of signer 102. For example, companion 302 may allow signer 102 to scan (e.g., photograph) QR code 402 into client device 104, e.g., via an optical scanner (e.g., a camera). In this example, client device 104 may transmit QR code 402 to a server, e.g., to validate the credential of companion 302. Upon successful validation of the credential of companion 302, the server may unlock electronic resource 206.).
Regarding claim 5, Saylor discloses:
wherein the software application allows users to create consensual engagement agreements for social dating by scanning QR codes and mutually agreeing on terms ((See Figures 2-5 and (14) Referring to FIG. 2, graphical user interface 200 is displayed on client device 104, e.g., following selection of the portion of graphical user interface 100 associated with indicator 108 (FIG. 1). Graphical user interface 200 displays a visual representation of electronic resource 206. In this example, electronic resource 206 is the electronic resource represented by indicator 108 (FIG. 1). Electronic resource 206 includes signature field 208. (15) In this example, user 102 desires to electronically sign electronic resource 206. Hereinafter, user 102 may be referred to as signer 102, for purposes of convenience, and without limitation. (16) In the example of FIG. 2, electronic resource 206 is associated with a condition that electronic resource 206 can be electronically signed if signer 102 is in the presence of a companion (not shown). In this example, signature field 208 is locked, e.g., as signer 102 is not in the presence of a companion. In this example, signature field 208 includes control 210 for enabling signer 102 to receive a credential from a companion, e.g., in order to unlock electronic resource 206. Following selection of control 210, client device 104 may start listening for an ultrasonic audio signal representation of a credential. In another example, following selection of control 210, client device 104 may instruct signer 102 to user a scanner to scan into client device 104 an optical machine-readable representation of a credential of a companion. In yet another example, following selection of control 210, client device 104 may instruct signer 102 to enter an alphanumeric code representation of a credential of a companion. In still another example, selection of control 210 causes client device 104 to send to a server (not shown) a message requesting that the server notify one or more companions of signer's 102 need to validate companionship, e.g., in order to unlock electronic resource 206. (25) In another example, client device 304 may receive information about the credential from the server. For example, the information about the credential may include a credential identifier (e.g., a number or character string that uniquely identifies a credential), information specifying a type of the credential, and so forth. Using the received information, client device 304 may generate the representation of the credential, including, e.g., an ultrasonic audio signal representation, an optical machine-readable representation, and a numeric or alphanumeric value representation. Referring to FIGS. 2-4, companion 302 causes QR code 402 to be presented and/or transmitted to client device 104 of signer 102. For example, companion 302 may allow signer 102 to scan (e.g., photograph) QR code 402 into client device 104, e.g., via an optical scanner (e.g., a camera). In this example, client device 104 may transmit QR code 402 to a server, e.g., to validate the credential of companion 302. Upon successful validation of the credential of companion 302, the server may unlock electronic resource 206.).
The Examiner notes that the type of agreement does not change or alter the method claim to allow users to create agreements., The type of agreement does not change of alter any step of the method and is directed to non-functional descriptive material that have little to no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 7, Saylor discloses:
timestamping executed agreement and associating them with unique identifiers for efficient retrieval ((57) Server 612 may generate in real-time a parametrically-generated graphical representation of a credential of companion 610, e.g., to compare the generated representation to credential representation 628 in validating a credential of companion 610. In this example, credential representation 628 may include information specifying a time at which credential representation 628 was generated and/or a credential identifier for companion 610, e.g., to enable server 612 to use the specified time as a seed value and/or to use the credential identifier as a seed value.).
Saylor does not explicitly disclose:
the agreement been a waiver.
Seed further teaches:
the agreement been a waiver ([0025] In some embodiments, document identifiers (e.g., QR codes) can be used to identify and retrieve documents for digital signing. For example, a user can receive a non-electronic version of a document (e.g., such as a waiver form from a school) to be signed. The document can include a QR code or other document identifier which can be scanned by the user to retrieve an electronic version of the document from a server. The electronic document can be displayed on the user's mobile device (e.g., through a webpage). Then, the user can review the electronic document, fill in any required information, and sign the document with an electronic signature generated by the electronic signature tool. [0059] FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating an exemplary process 400 for electronically signing a document in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention. One or more of the operations in process 400 can be performed by field module 225, population module 230, signature module 235, and/or receipt 240. In the embodiments illustrated in FIG. 4, document identifiers (e.g., QR codes) can be used to identify and retrieve documents for digital signing during scanning operation 410. For example, a user can receive a non-electronic version of a document (e.g., such as a waiver form from a school) to be signed. The document can include a QR code or other document identifier which can be scanned by the user to retrieve an electronic version of the document from a server using retrieval operation 420. The electronic document can have one or more user-specific fields (e.g., name, title, address, telephone number, social security number, photo, driver's license number, account number, etc.) that need to be filled in by the user before signing. ).
Regarding claim 13, Seed further teaches:
wherein the software application allows small business owners to create liability waivers for food and beverages ([0025] In some embodiments, document identifiers (e.g., QR codes) can be used to identify and retrieve documents for digital signing. For example, a user can receive a non-electronic version of a document (e.g., such as a waiver form from a school) to be signed. The document can include a QR code or other document identifier which can be scanned by the user to retrieve an electronic version of the document from a server. The electronic document can be displayed on the user's mobile device (e.g., through a webpage). Then, the user can review the electronic document, fill in any required information, and sign the document with an electronic signature generated by the electronic signature tool. [0059] FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating an exemplary process 400 for electronically signing a document in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention. One or more of the operations in process 400 can be performed by field module 225, population module 230, signature module 235, and/or receipt 240. In the embodiments illustrated in FIG. 4, document identifiers (e.g., QR codes) can be used to identify and retrieve documents for digital signing during scanning operation 410. For example, a user can receive a non-electronic version of a document (e.g., such as a waiver form from a school) to be signed. The document can include a QR code or other document identifier which can be scanned by the user to retrieve an electronic version of the document from a server using retrieval operation 420. The electronic document can have one or more user-specific fields (e.g., name, title, address, telephone number, social security number, photo, driver's license number, account number, etc.) that need to be filled in by the user before signing. ).
The Examiner notes that the specific implementation of small business and food and beverages does not change or alter the method of generating a waiver. The method would perform the same regardless of the type of waiver since the specific type of waiver constitutes non-functional descriptive material that does not change or alter the method in any manner.
Regarding claim 14, Seed further teaches:
the step of enabling users to customize waiver terms and conditions based on specific events or activities ([0025] In some embodiments, document identifiers (e.g., QR codes) can be used to identify and retrieve documents for digital signing. For example, a user can receive a non-electronic version of a document (e.g., such as a waiver form from a school) to be signed. The document can include a QR code or other document identifier which can be scanned by the user to retrieve an electronic version of the document from a server. The electronic document can be displayed on the user's mobile device (e.g., through a webpage). Then, the user can review the electronic document, fill in any required information, and sign the document with an electronic signature generated by the electronic signature tool. [0059] FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating an exemplary process 400 for electronically signing a document in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention. One or more of the operations in process 400 can be performed by field module 225, population module 230, signature module 235, and/or receipt 240. In the embodiments illustrated in FIG. 4, document identifiers (e.g., QR codes) can be used to identify and retrieve documents for digital signing during scanning operation 410. For example, a user can receive a non-electronic version of a document (e.g., such as a waiver form from a school) to be signed. The document can include a QR code or other document identifier which can be scanned by the user to retrieve an electronic version of the document from a server using retrieval operation 420. The electronic document can have one or more user-specific fields (e.g., name, title, address, telephone number, social security number, photo, driver's license number, account number, etc.) that need to be filled in by the user before signing. ).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to enable users to customize waiver terms and conditions based on specific events or activities, since such modification is merely a combination of well-known prior art elements that yield to predictable results such as allowing the user to have one-or more specific fields that needs to be filled for that specific document as disclosed by Seed [059].
Regarding claim 15, Seed further teaches:
wherein the software application supports scalability for large-scale deployment across multiple venues and activity providers ([0068] Mass storage 1135 can be used to store information and instructions. For example, hard disks such as the Adaptec.RTM. family of SCSI drives, an optical disc, an array of disks such as RAID, such as the Adaptec family of RAID drives, or any other mass storage devices may be used.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to support scalability for large-scale deployment across multiple venues and activity providers, since such modification is merely a combination of well-known prior art elements that yield to predictable results such as use mass storage devices that allow for mora data management as disclosed by Seed [068].
Regarding claim 18, Saylor further disclose:
wherein the software application enables users to attach additional documentation such as photos or videos to the generated waiver ((2) Generally, a credential may identify a person as being associated with a particular entity and/or as being authorized to access various types of information. An electronic resource may include an item of data that is accessible from a network and/or a computing device. There are various types of electronic resources, including, e.g., HTML pages, web pages, web sites, word processing documents, portable document format (PDF) documents, images, videos, electronic files, applications, and so forth.)
Regarding claim 19, Seed further teaches:
the step of integrating a digital signature verification mechanism to ensure the authenticity of executed waivers ([0007] Once the user-specific fields have been supplied through the population tool, a third user interface screen can be displayed on the mobile device. In some embodiments, the third user interface screen presents the electronic document with the populated fields along with a signing widget capable generating an electronic signature for the electronic document with the populated fields. In some embodiments, in response to the signing widget generating the electronic signature, a receipt can be generated to verify signing of the electronic document. This receipt can be transmitted to a specified destination (e.g., owner of the document, recordation service, etc) and/or displayed within a fourth user interface screen on the mobile device. [0024] Various embodiments of the present invention generally relate to electronic document identification and signing systems. Certain embodiments of the present invention provide for a virtual signature tool to create a unique, verifiable, electronic signature for signing documents. In accordance with various embodiments, the virtual signature tool can use a smart phone or other mobile device to create the unique, verifiable, electronic signature (SigCode). For example, the electronic or virtual signature tool can create a quick response (QR) code to capture user information to form a unique, verifiable, electronic signature for signing documents. [0030] Once the verification code has been authenticated, the electronic signature can be created which captures a variety of identifying information such as, but not limited to, phone identification information, time, date, gps location, user provided information, verification codes, information about the document to be signed, date and time the document was sent to the user, who sent the document, version of the document, etc. All required signature pages within the document can be identified and all fields can be populated with information about the signer. The signed document can then be returned to the owner.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to integrate a digital signature verification mechanism, since such modification is merely a combination of well-known prior art elements that yield to predictable results such as verifying the authenticity of the virtual signature as disclosed by Seed [024, 045].
Claim(s) 6, 9, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Saylor (US Patent 8,966,597) in view of Seed (US Patent Publication 2012/0284602)n and PORWAL (US Patent Publication 2018/0173477).
Regarding claim 6,
Seed teaches:
a waiver between a first and second party ([0025] In some embodiments, document identifiers (e.g., QR codes) can be used to identify and retrieve documents for digital signing. For example, a user can receive a non-electronic version of a document (e.g., such as a waiver form from a school) to be signed. The document can include a QR code or other document identifier which can be scanned by the user to retrieve an electronic version of the document from a server. The electronic document can be displayed on the user's mobile device (e.g., through a webpage). Then, the user can review the electronic document, fill in any required information, and sign the document with an electronic signature generated by the electronic signature tool. [0059] FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating an exemplary process 400 for electronically signing a document in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention. One or more of the operations in process 400 can be performed by field module 225, population module 230, signature module 235, and/or receipt 240. In the embodiments illustrated in FIG. 4, document identifiers (e.g., QR codes) can be used to identify and retrieve documents for digital signing during scanning operation 410. For example, a user can receive a non-electronic version of a document (e.g., such as a waiver form from a school) to be signed. The document can include a QR code or other document identifier which can be scanned by the user to retrieve an electronic version of the document from a server using retrieval operation 420. The electronic document can have one or more user-specific fields (e.g., name, title, address, telephone number, social security number, photo, driver's license number, account number, etc.) that need to be filled in by the user before signing. ).
Saylor and Seed do not explicitly discloses:
storing data securely in a cloud environment accessible by both parties.
However PORWAL which is similarly directed to a system for forms generation between multiple clients further teaches:
storing data securely in a cloud environment accessible by both parties ([0010] The cloud template store comprises one or more service provider templates accessible to all registered clients and one or more client-specific templates accessible to respective client created and uploaded those templates.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to store the waiver securely in a cloud environment accessible by both parties since such is improvement is merely a combination of prior art elements known in the art that provide the known benefit of allowing all users registered to the system to access the data stored as disclosed by PORWALL [0010].
Regarding claim 9, PORWAL further teaches:
wherein the software application supports multiple languages for waiver creation and execution ([0026] “Form parameter” refers to a characteristic or metadata of a form which may help to define or identity the form. For example, form ID (unique identifier assigned to form), form version, form locale, and accessibility mode, etc., may be some of the form parameters. Form locale indicates a country for which the form is applicable and the language in which form is to be generated and form accessibility mode indicates whether the form is to be in a format applicable for differently-abled clients (e.g., blind users). Each form parameter has corresponding value or data. For example, the data or value for the form parameter ‘form ID’ may be ‘HR_DEP_DECL’ (i.e., form for dependent declaration), the value for the form parameter ‘form locale’ may be ‘en_US’ (i.e., form is in USA version of english language), and the value for the form parameter ‘accessibility mode’ may be ‘0’ (e.g., indicating that the form is not in format for differently-abled clients). The value may be of specific data type. For example, the value (e.g., HR_DEP_DECL) for form parameter ‘form ID’ and the value (e.g., en_US) for the form parameter ‘form locale’ may be of type ‘variable character’ or VARCHAR’ and the data or value (e.g., 0) for the form parameter ‘accessibility mode’ may be ‘Boolean’ data type (‘0’ for normal format and ‘1’ for differently-abled user format).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to improve the system to have a software application supports multiple languages for waiver creation and execution since such modification is a combination of well-known prior art elements that yield to predictable results such as allow the forms to be applicable to different countries thereby reaching more users as disclosed by PORWAL [026]
Regarding claim 11, Saylor does not explicitly disclose:
providing real-time call center support during the waiver creation process.
However PORWAL further teaches:
providing real-time call center support during the waiver creation process ([0040] Once the account is created, the registered clients/users may access one or more applications of the integrated form services module 110 and consume its services, e.g., print form service. The registered user can initiate service requests or calls through their registered account/instance. In an embodiment, the requests or calls may include authentication details (e.g., HCP account ID and password) of the registered user raising the requests or calls. In an embodiment, the authentication details may be encrypted and included as header within the request or call. The request may be made through an OData based API.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to improve the system to provide real-time call center support during the waiver creation process since such modification is a combination of well-known prior art elements that yield to predictable results such as allow the users to make requests or calls related to any authentication details or other issues as disclosed by PORWAL [040].
Regarding claim 17, Saylor does not explicitly disclose:
enabling modular integration of future applications such as rental agreements and temporary real estate leases.
However PORWAL further teaches:
enabling modular integration of future applications such as rental agreements and temporary real estate leases ([070] The output devices 725 and input devices 730 could be joined by one or more additional peripherals to further expand the capabilities of the computer system 700.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to improve the system to enable modular integration of future applications such as rental agreements and temporary real estate leases since such modification is a combination of well-known prior art elements that yield to predictable results such as further consider future expansions capabilities as disclosed by PORWAL [070].
Claim(s) 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Saylor (US Patent 8,966,597) in view of Seed (US Patent Publication 2012/0284602) and Papa (US Patent Publication 2021/0312555).
Regarding claim 8, Saylor does not explicitly discloses:
However Papa which similarly is directed to a system and method for document generation and execution further teaches:
wherein the software includes a multi-factor authentication (MFA) to enhance user identify verification during enrollment and agreement creation ([0149] In some embodiments, a user reset process may be performed by the system, which may include one or more of the following steps. The system may assign a new user as a performing user, or may have previously assigned the new user as a user. The system may send a reset email to the user's email account, the email including a link for the user to automatically access the system and/or reset his password. In some embodiments, secure authentication tokens, multi-factor authentication, and other authentication systems may be used to ensure that a user may not access the system without due authorization. [0229] In operation, user 1506 may present his or her credentials to the system, which are matched against credentials 1506a to verify the user's identity at authentication module 1502. In some embodiments, two-factor or multi-factor authentication may be used.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to improve the system in Saylor with multi-factor authentication since such improvement is merely a combination of prior art elements previously known in the art that yield to predictable results such as ensure that a user may not access the system without due authorization as disclosed by Papa [0149].
Regarding claim 10, Saylor does not explicitly disclose:
the step of pre-loading venue-specific or activity-specific waiver templates to facilitate rapid documentation.
However Papa further teaches:
the step of pre-loading venue-specific or activity-specific waiver templates to facilitate rapid documentation ([0016] FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram of a document template, in accordance with some embodiments. [0035] In some embodiments, as used herein, “amendment” may refer to an addition of supplemental information to an executed document. Such additions are made at the granularity of a document section. The availability of an amendment for a document section is defined in the document template, so that that sections critical to the system are not changed. [0041] In some embodiments, as used herein, “core record” may refer to computer-processable, structured data that represents the core information contained within a document along with the lineage entry. Core records are grouped in sets that reflect various aspects of the data. For system-rendered documents, the core records are used in conjunction with a document template to generate a printable document. In some embodiments, core records are a fundamental record in a document, from which stakeholder records and entity records are derived.
[0043] In some embodiments, as used herein, “core record schema” may refer to a set of core record fields that describe one subject area of the core records. Core record schemas can be either defined specifically for one document template or for a group of document templates where a standardized data set is needed to effectively analyze the data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to improve the system in Saylor with the step of pre-loading venue-specific or activity-specific waiver templates to facilitate rapid documentation since such improvement is merely a combination of prior art elements previously known in the art that yield to predictable results such as having structured data that represents core information contained within a document where a standardized data set is needed in order to effectively analyze data as disclosed by Papa [043].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Saylor (US Patent 8,966,597) in view of Seed (US Patent Publication 2012/0284602)n and WILLIS (US Patent Publication 2025/0014132).
Regarding claim 12,
Saylor discloses a system that allows to generate and manage legal documents such as agreements.
Saylor does not explicitly disclose:
offering access to a network of independent attorneys for professional legal consultation.
However WILLIS which discloses a system to generate and manage legal documents in the form of agreements and other further teaches:
offering access to a network of independent attorneys for professional legal consultation ([0117] In one embodiment, a group of attorneys can be collected and placed into the system, such as within a database. The group of attorneys can be pre-screened for qualification in this area, so a group of qualified attorneys can be offered to the decedent, or decedent and user, if they are interested, to create a referral attorney network. In an embodiment, the attorneys within the network can pay a maintenance, brokerage or other similar fee to be in the network, which can provide an additional source of revenue. Further, a decedent or user can personally consult with a chosen attorney, or the video technology of the system 10 can be used to create video consultations with in-network attorneys 301. This can greatly increase convenience and options for the decedent or user. The system 10 can, thereby, supply the decedent or user quick and convenient access to pre-screened, qualified attorneys in specified areas without having to leave their own home.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to improve the system in Saylor with offering access to a network of independent attorneys for professional legal consultation since such improvement is merely a combination of prior art elements previously known in the art that yield to predictable results such as supply the user quick and convenient access to pre-screened, qualified attorneys in specified areas without having to leave their own home as disclosed by WILLIS [0117].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Saylor (US Patent 8,966,597) in view of Seed (US Patent Publication 2012/0284602) and Shaath (US Patent Publication 2006/0010150).
Regarding claim 16, Saylor does not explicitly disclose:
determining liability end dates based on state-specific statutes of limitations.
Furthermore Shaath is introduced to teach a system for electronic file management.
Shaath further teaches:
determining liability end dates based on state-specific statutes of limitations (See Figure 6 and [0102] disclosing determining an expiration date for the file [0102] Referring to Fig. 6, a simplified flow diagram of a method of using retention dates to track file lifecycles is shown. File expiration dates are stored in association with each file. The expiration dates are indicative of a minimum time before deletion, if any; a date on which to delete the file; and any policies relating to the deletion such as archiving or moving the file to other storage media and so forth. Retention policies within a drawer effect the expiration dates. For example, every time a file is accessed, the retention date is updated. The update may differ depending on the access type - read, write, copy, etc. - or may remain the same across all access functions. Also, the policies are capable of supporting distinctions based on user identifications, file types, security levels, and so forth. Another example would allow files that are no longer required for the organization to expire after they reached the legal statute of limitations to be disposed of automatically without delay.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to determine liability end dates based on state-specific statutes of limitations since such modification and improvement in the system of Saylor is a well-known procedure in the art that provides the known benefit of allowing files that are no longer required for the organization to expire after they reached the legal statute of limitations to be disposed of automatically without delay.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Saylor (US Patent 8,966,597) in view of Seed (US Patent Publication 2012/0284602) and Uraizee (US Patent Publication 2016/0315888).
Regarding claim 20, Saylor does not explicitly disclose:
the step of allowing users to generate and execute waivers offline, with automatic synchronization to the cloud when connectivity is restored.
However Uraizee which is directed to smart attachments to communications further teaches:
allowing users to generate and execute documents offline, with automatic synchronization to the cloud when connectivity is restored ([0026] In a system according to embodiments, the sender 102 may attach or attempt to attach a local version of a synchronized file (one with local and cloud versions), for example. The system may prompt the sender to select between the two versions, suggest the cloud version instead of the local version, or automatically switch to the cloud version instead of the local version. In some examples, the recipient 118 may automatically receive the cloud version upon the system determining that the local file has a cloud counterpart. In other examples, if the sender 102 is connected to the cloud service (cloud sources 108), the recipient 118 may receive the cloud version. If the sender 102 is offline, the recipient 118 may receive the local version (from the sender's local files 106). On the recipient side, the service may check to see if the received attachment files are already synchronized to the recipient's local drive. If the files are not locally synchronized and the recipient is offline with the cloud service, he/she may get an alert that neither the cloud, nor the local version of the attachments are available.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to allow users to generate and execute documents offline, with automatic synchronization to the cloud when connectivity is restored since such improvement allows for the well-known benefit of allowing the system to determine and select automatically between local and cloud versions of synchronized files allowing the recipient of the message to receive a version of the file regardless of whether the sender is offline or online as disclosed by Uraizee [abstract].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ashly, US 11620713, Automated Regulatory Compliance For Insurance. This specification generally relates to automated reviewing, tracking, and enabling of compliance.
Eliezer, US 20220014385, METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FACILITATING ELECTRONIC WITNESSING OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. The present disclosure generally relates to electronic signature processes and technology. More specifically, the disclosure relates to a method and system for facilitating electronic witnessing of electronic signatures.
Hoffmann, US 20190243841, SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A STRUCTURED REPORT FROM UNSTRUCTURED DATA. The present subject matter is directed generally to data extraction, and more particularly to unstructured data analysis to generate a structured data output based on customizable template rules.
Duncan, US 20160132588, ASSOCIATING IDENTIFIERS TO PARTICIPANTS. [0047] Race pass issuance: Participants may be required to complete an online check-in for their forthcoming event and print a race pass. The race pass may include a waiver and/ or terms and conditions of the event organiser that the participant must sign and agree to. Each printed race pass will display their unique identifier, such as a QR code. Each participant is required to bring their race pass to the race.
A. T. Arief, W. Wirawan and Y. K. Suprapto, "Authentication of Printed Document Using Quick Response (QR) Code," 2019 International Seminar on Intelligent Technology and Its Applications (ISITIA), Surabaya, Indonesia, 2019, pp. 228-233, doi: 10.1109/ISITIA.2019.8937084.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629