DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is response to communication: response to amendments/arguments filed on 08/18/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 2-20 are new.
The IDS filed on 08/18/2026 has been approved.
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejections have been withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 103 rejections are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See amended rejection below.
Double Patenting
The prior double patenting rejections have been withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaetzel et al. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0206644 (Spaetzel), in view of Ford et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0041296 (Ford).
As per claim 1, Spaetzel teaches a computer-implemented method for securely acquiring an electronic-based signature in a networked computing environment, the computer-implemented method comprising: processing a workflow for an electronic signature system ESS in communication with a client computing device of a user, wherein a flow event is raised during workflow processing (abstract, paragraph 3, with electronic signature system and performing actions based on processed and analyzed dzta; see also paragraphs 5, 6, and throughout with multiple conditions; see further paragraph 103); determining, by the ESS, that the workflow event is of a type that could trigger proessing at a computerized content management system in communication with the ESS and identifying, by the ESS, information of one or more ESS conditions of the workflow event determined to be the type that could trigger computerized CMS processing (see paragarphs 5 and 6 with retrieving conditions assocaited with signature request; conditions may be generated and/or present; see paragraphs 83-85 with analyzing the workflow of the signature process and determining whether multipole conditions are met); executing, by the ESS, a multi-stage check on the identified information of the ESS conditions; triggering, at the computerized CMS, at elast one CMS event based at least in part on a result of the multi-stage check communicated by the ESS to the comptuerized CMS (see paragarpsh 84-85 with determining whether conditions are met; see also paragraph 103; see further paragraph 107 with multiple conditions being checked), and acquiring, by the ESS, electronic-based signature of the user (throughout reference; see abstract, paragraph 3, and throughout).
Although Spaetzel teaches processing workflows and checking for conditions, Spaetzel does not explicitly teach wherein such conditions are a remediation check. However, utilizing conditions such as remediation checks before acquiring signatures is well known in the art. For example, see Ford (paragraphs 131-132 with checking for user authorization, number of people viewing, etc). Ford further teaches acquiring, by the ESS, electronic based signature of the user based at leastin part on execution of a remediation instruction generated by the computerized CMS in response to the CMS event (paragraph 132-133 with enabling e-signature process only after certain remediation conditions are met).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Spaetzel with Ford. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide a secure collaboration of networked secure content (Ford paragraph 2).
As per claim 2, it would have been obvious over the Spaetzel combination wherein the client computing device of the user processes the workflow (obvious over Spaetzel; see paragraph 71 wherein actiosn may be performed by different systems and devices; see also paragraphs 30-32 with client device performing the steps).
As per claim 3, it would have been obvious over the Spaetzel combination whereint he workflow event is raised by the workflow or by a module of the ESS (paragraphs 84, and 85 with condition processing raised by workflow).
As per claim 4, it would have been obvious over the Spaetzel combination wherein multiple conditions are identified, and the multi-stage remediation check is executed on respective identified information of respective conditions (see Spatezel paragraphs 84 and 85 with different conditions; see also paragraph 107 with multipole conditions).
As per claim 5, it would have been obvious over the Spaetzel combination wherein the multi-stage remediation check comprises a security check, a content check, and an event check (see Spaetzel paragraphs 84 and 85 with content and event checks; see Ford paragraph 131 with security and event checks).
As per claim 8, it would have been obvious over Ford wherein the security check involves a vulnerability or risk to the electronic deocument, and the remediation instruction generated by the computerized CMS specifies at least one of a hardening a security protection around the electronic document and deferring electronc signing until a later time (Ford paragraph 131 with detecting people currently viewing screen, and protecting document by obfuscating document; document may only be signed when conditions are met).
As per claim 11, the Spaetzel combination does not explicitly teach wherein the event check involves a change in an environment in which the electronic signature is to be executed (Ford paragraph 131 for detecting others viewing the screen).
As per claim 13, the Spaetzel combination teaches further comprising configuring the computerized CMS, wherein the computerized CMS hosts and exposes at least one shared content object of a plurality of content objects to a plurality of collaborators including the user, and collaboration comprises at least one collaborator modifying a content object or metadata of the content object in a collaboration event hosted on the computerized CMS (Spaetzel throughout reference; see paragraph 49-51 with collaborative content management systems wherein users can edit/sign items).
Claim 14 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Spaetzel combination as applied above, and further in view of Juncker et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0375891 (Juncker).
As per claim 6, the Spaetzel combination does not explicitly teach wherein the security check involves a change in a network used by the client computer device that results in a security vulnerability or risk to the client computing device, and the remediation instruction generated by the computerized CMS specifies a network or network configuration to be used for the electronic signature. However, detecting a change in the network and specifying a network to be used for secure access is well known in the art. For example, see Juncker (paragraph 90-93 with detecting change in network; system may mitigate risk by preventing access or providing access once the user moves back onto designated network).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Ford combination with Juncker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by mitigating security risks (paragraph 6 of Juncker).
Claim 16 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Spaetzel combination as applied above, and further in view of Manepalli et al. US Patent No. 10,560,845 (Manepalli).
As per claim 7, the Ford combination does not explicitly teach wherein the network change comprises the client computing device transitioning from a first mobile cellular service provider to a second mobile cellular service provider. However, evaluating such changes for risk is well known in the art. For example, see Manepalli (col. 3 lines 30-45).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Ford combination with Manepalli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by preventing fraud (col. 2 lines 1-24)
Claim 17 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 7 above.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Spaetzel combination as applied above, and further in view of Pravetz et al. US Patent No. 7,735,144 (Pravetz).
As per claim 9, the Spaetzel combination does not explicitly teach wherein the content check involves detecting whether the electronic document to be electronically signed or metadata of the electronic document has been changed or corrupted. However, checking for changes in documents is well known in the art. For example, see Pravetz (col. 1 lines 25-35, col. 7 lines 45-53, and throughout).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Pravets with the Ford combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to increase security by preventing malicious modification (col. 1 line 15-25).
As per claim 10, it would have been obvious over the Spaetzel combination wherein the remediation instruction generated by the computerized CMS specifies use of a refreshed copy of the electronic document for the electronic signature (obvious over Pravetz; see col. 8 lines 1-26 with reverting the document to a previous state).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Spaetzel combination as applied above, and further in view of Saylor et al. US Patent No. 9,450,958 (Saylor)
As per claim 12, it would have been obvious over the Spaetzel combination wherein the event check involves whether user’s authentication certificate was revoked or that an earlier-provided authorization token for the client computing device was revoked, and the remediation instruction generated by the computerized CMS indicates that the electronic signature activites be aborted (obvious over Ford; see paragraph 131 with authenticating signer before signing to proceed; if user is not authorized, signing cannot proceed). However, for a more explicit teaching on checking for revocation, see Saylor (Col. 31 lines 43-60 with checking whether permission has been revoked by credential granting authority; see further col. 15 lines 26-38 with preventing electronic signature if permission not met).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Spaetzel combination with Saylor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to allow secure access (col. 1 lines 15-21)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAI YIN GEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6431. The examiner can normally be reached on Monda-Friday 8:30-5:00 PST Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights