DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 1/24/2025. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and are examined.
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/Benefit
Applicant’s priority claim is hereby acknowledged of CON of 17/835,836 06/08/2022 PAT 12210635, 17/835,836 is a CIP of 17/355,083 06/22/2021 PAT 11636218, 17/355,083 is a CON of 16/400,953 05/01/2019 PAT 11042651, 16/400,953 has PRO 62/666,339 05/03/2018, however the claimed priority is deficient. A later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original non-provisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application, related to at least the identifying discrepancies as recited in the claims.
Claims 1-20 contain subject matter which is not supported in the above application and therefore, for the purposes of examination, these claims, each viewed as a whole, will not receive the priority claimed therein. Therefore claims 1-20 receive the claimed priority date of 6/8/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 1/24/2025, 1/24/2025, 1/24/2025, 1/24/2025, 4/9/2025, 5/20/2025, and 5/20/2025 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Examiner’s Note – Patentably Distinct Subject Matter
Applications 17/355,083 now US Patent 11636218, 16/400,953 now US Patent 11042651, 18/305,880 now US Patent 12,400,008 and copending application 19/308,638 recite similar, yet patentably distinct subject matter.
Examiner’s Note – Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 and 18 overcome the prior art and would otherwise be allowable if incorporated into the base claim along with any intervening claims. Further, the claims must overcome the double patenting rejection and 35 USC 101 rejections (where applicable) below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 11-12, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter 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.
The analysis is guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice (Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296-97 (2012)).Step 1: Is/Are the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?Answer: Yes.Step 2A Prong 1: Is/Are the claim(s) directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, i.e., judicially recognized exceptions (both individually and as an ordered combination)?
Answer: Yes, claim 1 is directed to the mental process of “extracting, by a computer, a first set of features for a master digital document as a feature vector representing a plurality of features of the master digital document, using a first set of machine-learning architecture layers trained to extract the feature vector representing the plurality of features of a digital document; extracting, by the computer, a second set of features for an input digital document as the feature vector representing the plurality of document features of the input digital document, using the first set of machine-learning architecture layers; and identifying, by the computer, one or more discrepancies in the input digital document based upon the first set of features for the master digital document and the second set of features for the input digital document” beyond the scope of § 101. Similarly, claim 11 recites “identifying, by a computer, one or more discrepancies in an input digital document based upon comparing a first set of features as extracted for a master digital document and a second set of features as extracted for the input digital document; and identifying, by the computer, one or more permissions associated with the master digital document stored in a data record for the master digital document”.
Claims 6 and 20 recite “generating, by the computer, a discrepancy score for the input digital document based upon the one or more discrepancies as identified in the input digital document”. Claim 12 further describes the identified abstract concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: Is/Are the claim(s) implemented into a practical application?
Answer: No, the limitations of the claim as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers implementation of the mental processes which can be performed by the mind using pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “by a computer”). The claims recite extra solution activity including the ingestion via receiving/obtaining data and displaying of results by a generic computer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Extra solution activity of ingesting and outputting data on a generic computer amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.Step 2B: Does/Do the claim(s) recite additional elements that when analyzed individually and in ordered combinations amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)?
Answer: No, the claim(s) (both individually and as an ordered combinations) does/do not transform the nature of the claim(s) into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea (i.e., significantly more than the abstract idea implemented using generic computer components). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements to perform the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims are not patent eligible.
The non-identified claims implement the identified mental processes into a practical application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 9-10, 12-15, 18, of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,635. Although the claims at issue are not identical in form, they are not patentably distinct from each other. In particular, patented claim 1 anticipates instant claims 1-2 and 5. Patented claim 5 anticipates instant claims 3-4. Patented claims 2-3 anticipate instant claims 7-8, respectively. Patented claims 9-10 anticipate instant claims 9-10, respectively. Patented claim 13 anticipates instant claim 11. Patented claim 15 anticipates instant claim 12. Patented claim 18 anticipates instant claims 13 and 14. Patented claims 12-13 anticipate instant claims 15-16, respectively. Patented claim 13 anticipates instants claim 17 and 18. Patented claim 14 anticipates instant claim 19. Regarding claims 6 and 20, the patented claims do not, but in related art, Huber (US 2021/0158036 A1), ¶ 124 teaches generating a similarly score based on the differences with the input document and the security features. Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huber and the patented claims, to modify the document verification method of the patented claims to include the similarity score as taught in Huber. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6, is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huber (US 2021/0158036 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huber teaches:
“A computer-implemented method (Huber, ¶ 138 teaches a processor and memory for implementing method steps) for implementing machine-learning for digital document forensic reviews, the method comprising: extracting, by a computer, a first set of features for a master digital document as a feature vector representing a plurality of features of the master digital document, using a first set of machine-learning architecture layers trained to extract the feature vector representing the plurality of features of a digital document (Huber, Fig. 2, ¶ 41 and 58-61 teaches extracting from legitimate digital documents with specific security features and building a features vector with a multi layered machine learning system. While further examples refer to the face portion, Huber also says that the whole document can be extracted); extracting, by the computer, a second set of features for an input digital document as the feature vector representing the plurality of document features of the input digital document, using the first set of machine-learning architecture layers (Huber, Fig. 4D, ¶ 103-105 and Fig. 4F, ¶ 121-123 teaches extracting features from a tested document for comparison against the legitimate document); and identifying, by the computer, one or more discrepancies in the input digital document based upon the first set of features for the master digital document and the second set of features for the input digital document (Huber, ¶ 105-106 and 125 teaches determining discrepancies of the feature vectors and the legitimate document feature vector to determine if the tested document is counterfeit)”.
Regarding claim 6, Huber teaches:
“The method according to claim 1 (Huber teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), further comprising generating, by the computer, a discrepancy score for the input digital document based upon the one or more discrepancies as identified in the input digital document (Huber, ¶ 124 teaches generating a similarly score based on the differences with the input document and the security features)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber, in view of Monaco (US 2018/0189512 A1) in view of Gibson (US 2020/0258176 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Huber teaches:
“The method according to claim 1 (Huber teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Huber does not, but in related art, Monaco teaches:
“further comprising obtaining, by the computer, the master digital document having the plurality of document features for the master digital document (Monaco, ¶ 98 teaches a master template made from a legitimate document).
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huber and Monaco, to modify the document verification method of Huber to include the master document as taught in Monaco. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Huber and Monaco do not, but in related art, Gibson teaches:
“and a visualization element indicating the master digital document (Gibson, Fig. 8, ¶ 247-248 teaches a document image accompanied with a QR code encoded with information related to the document and its processing)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huber, Gibson and Monaco, to modify the document verification method of Huber and Monaco to include the visualization element as taught in Gibson. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Gibson.
Regarding claim 4, Huber teaches:
“The method according to claim 1 (Huber teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), further comprising obtaining, by the computer, the input digital document having the second set of features for the input digital document (Huber, Fig. 4D, ¶ 103-105 and Fig. 4F, ¶ 121-123 teaches extracting features from a tested document for comparison against the legitimate document)”.
Huber does not, but in related art, Gibson teaches:
“and a visualization element indicating the master digital document (Gibson, Fig. 8, ¶ 247-248 teaches a document image accompanied with a QR code encoded with information related to the document and its processing)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huber and Gibson, to modify the document verification method of Huber to include the visualization element as taught in Gibson. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Earley (US 2020/0349125 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Huber teaches:
“The method according to claim 1 (Huber teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Huber does not, but in related art, Earley teaches:
“further comprising generating, by the computer, a report for display at a client device associated with a submitting user according to the one or more discrepancies as identified in the input digital document (Earley, ¶ 12 teaches displaying on a client device a report demonstrating the differences between the two documents)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huber and Earley, to modify the document verification method of Huber to include the user display as taught in Earley. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Earley in view of Jayaram (US 2021/0352142 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Huber and Earley teaches:
“The method according to claim 7 (Huber and Earley teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Huber and Earley do not, but in related art, Jayaram teaches:
“further comprising receiving, by the computer, from the client device associated with the submitting user a forensics request indicating the input digital document and one or more forensics operations, wherein the computer generates the report according to a forensics operation as indicated by the forensics request (Jayaram, ¶ 126, 128, 346, and 425 teaches performing forensic analysis of financial transactions, utilizing hashing and identifying differences between documents)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huber, Jayaram and Earley, to modify the document verification method of Huber and Earley to include the forensic analysis as taught in Jayaram. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Huber in view of Earley in view of Jayaram teaches:
“The method according to claim 7 (Huber in view of Earley in view of Jayaram teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), further comprising: identifying, by the computer, one or more permissions associated with the master digital document stored in a data record for the master digital document (Jayaram, ¶ 73 and 75 teaches checking the permissions for access to a given document); and determining, by the computer, that a user permission of the submitting user corresponds to a permission to access the master digital document as indicated by a forensics request, wherein the computer generates the report in response to determining that the user permission corresponds to the permission to access the master digital document (Jayaram, ¶ 67, 126, 128, and 154 teaches determining that the user has access to the document)”.
Regarding claim 10, Huber in view of Earley in view of Jayaram teaches:
“The method according to claim 7 (Huber in view of Earley in view of Jayaram teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), further comprising: identifying, by the computer, one or more permissions associated with the master digital document stored in a data record for the master digital document (Jayaram, ¶ 67, 126, 128, and 154 teaches determining that the user has access to the document); and determining, by the computer, that a user permission of the submitting user corresponds to the permission to access a type of information for the master digital document as indicated by one or more forensic operations of a forensics request (Huber in view of Earley in view of Jayaram teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the computer generates the report further based upon the type of information for the one or more forensic operations in response to determining that the user permission corresponds to the permission to access the type of information for the master digital document (Jayaram, ¶ 126, 128, 346, and 425 teaches performing forensic analysis of financial transactions, utilizing hashing and identifying differences between documents)”.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Jayaram.
Regarding claim 11, Huber teaches:
“A computer-implemented method (Huber, ¶ 138 teaches implementation with a processor coupled to a memory) for implementing machine-learning for digital document forensic reviews according to permissions, the method comprising: identifying, by a computer, one or more discrepancies in an input digital document based upon comparing a first set of features (Huber, Fig. 2, ¶ 41 and 58-61 teaches extracting from legitimate digital documents with specific security features and building a features vector with a multi layered machine learning system. While further examples refer to the face portion, Huber also says that the whole document can be extracted) as extracted for a master digital document and a second set of features as extracted for the input digital document (Huber, ¶ 105-106 and 125 teaches determining discrepancies of the feature vectors and the legitimate document feature vector to determine if the tested document is counterfeit)”.
Huber does not, but in related art, Jayaram teaches:
“receiving, by the computer, from a client device associated with a submitting user a forensics request indicating the input digital document and one or more forensics operations (Jayaram, ¶ 126, 128, 346, and 425 teaches performing forensic analysis of financial transactions, utilizing hashing and identifying differences between documents); identifying, by the computer, one or more permissions associated with the master digital document stored in a data record for the master digital document (Jayaram, ¶ 67, 126, 128, and 154 teaches determining that the user has access to the document); and generating, by the computer, a report for display at the client device based upon the one or more discrepancies in the input digital document and further based upon a user permission of the submitting user corresponding to a permission associated with the master digital document (Jayaram, ¶ 67, 126, 128, and 154 teaches determining that the user has access to the document. Jayaram, ¶ 126, 128, 346, and 425 teaches performing forensic analysis of financial transactions, utilizing hashing and identifying differences between documents)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huber and Jayaram to modify the document verification method of Huber to include the forensic analysis as taught in Jayaram. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Huber and Jayaram teaches:
“The method according to claim 11 (Huber and Jayaram teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), further comprising identifying, by the computer, a user record for the submitting user stored in a database, the user record indicates the user permission for the submitting user (Jayaram, ¶ 87, 89 and 260 teaches distributed ledger database which is accessed through hashing the analyzed document)”.
Regarding claim 13, Huber and Jayaram teaches:
“The method according to claim 11 (Huber and Jayaram teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), further comprising determining, by the computer, that the user permission of the submitting user corresponds to the permission to access the master digital document as indicated by the forensics request (Jayaram, ¶ 67, 126, 128 and 154 teaches determining that the user has access to the document for an unregistered user), wherein the computer generates the report in response to determining that the user permission corresponds to the permission to access the master digital document (Jayaram, ¶ 67, 126, 128, and 154 teaches determining that the user has access to the document. Jayaram, ¶ 126, 128, 346, and 425 teaches performing forensic analysis of financial transactions, utilizing hashing and identifying differences between documents)”.
Regarding claim 14, Huber and Jayaram teaches:
“The method according to claim 11 (Huber and Jayaram teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), further comprising determining, by the computer, that the user permission of the submitting user corresponds to the permission to access a type of information for the master digital document as indicated by the one or more forensic operations of the forensics request (Jayaram, ¶ 67, 126, 128 and 154 teaches determining that the user has access to the document for an unregistered user), wherein the computer generates the report based upon the type of information in response to determining that the user permission corresponds to the permission to access the type of information for the master digital document (Jayaram, ¶ 67, 126, 128, and 154 teaches determining that the user has access to the document. Jayaram, ¶ 126, 128, 346, and 425 teaches performing forensic analysis of financial transactions, utilizing hashing and identifying differences between documents)”.
Regarding claim 20, Huber and Jayaram teaches:
“The method according to claim 11 (Huber and Jayaram teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), further comprising generating, by the computer, a discrepancy score for the input digital document based upon the one or more discrepancies as identified for the input digital document (Huber, ¶ 124 teaches generating a similarly score based on the differences with the input document and the security features)”.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Jayaram in view of Gibson.
Regarding claim 15, Huber and Jayaram teaches:
“The method according to claim 14 (Huber and Jayaram teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above) Huber and Jayaram do not, but in related art, Gibson teaches:
“further comprising identifying, by the computer, audit trail data for the master digital document stored in one or more data records (Gibson, Fig. 7, ¶ 234 teaches compliance audit certificate which is checked for a valid digital certificate and stored on the blockchain), the audit trail data indicating one or more updates to the master digital document (Gibson, Fig. 7, ¶ 234 teaches compliance audit certificate which is checked for a valid digital certificate and stored on the blockchain), wherein the computer generates the report based upon the audit trail data as the type of information in response to determining that the user permission corresponds to the permission to access the audit trail data as the type of information for the master digital document (Gibson, Fig. 7, ¶ 234 teaches compliance audit certificate which is checked for a valid digital certificate and stored on the blockchain)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huber, Jayaram, and Gibson, to modify the document verification method of Huber, and Jayaram, to include the certificate system as taught in Gibson. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Huber and Jayaram teaches:
“The method according to claim 11 (Huber and Jayaram teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above) further comprising obtaining, by the computer, the input digital document having the second set of features (Huber, Fig. 4D, ¶ 103-105 and Fig. 4F, ¶ 121-123 teaches extracting features from a tested document for comparison against the legitimate document)”.
Huber and Jayaram do not, but in related art, Gibson teaches:
“and a visualization element indicating the master digital document, wherein the master digital document includes the visualization element indicating the master digital document (Gibson, Fig. 8, ¶ 247-248 teaches a document image accompanied with a QR code encoded with information related to the document and its processing)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huber, Jayaram, and Gibson, to modify the document verification method of Huber, and Jayaram, to include the visualization element as taught in Gibson. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Jayaram in view of Monaco in view of Gibson.
Regarding claim 17, Huber and Jayaram teaches:
“The method according to claim 11 (Huber and Jayaram teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Huber in view of Jayaram does not, but in related art, Monaco teaches:
“further comprising obtaining, by the computer, the master digital document having the first set of features (Monaco, ¶ 98 teaches a master template made from a legitimate document).
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huber, Jayaram and Monaco, to modify the document verification method of Huber and Jayaram to include the master document as taught in Monaco. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Huber, Jayaram, and Monaco do not, but in related art, Gibson teaches:
“and a visualization element indicating the master digital document, wherein the input document includes the visualization element indicating the master digital document (Gibson, Fig. 8, ¶ 247-248 teaches a document image accompanied with a QR code encoded with information related to the document and its processing)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huber, Jayaram, Gibson and Monaco, to modify the document verification method of Huber, Jayaram, and Monaco to include the visualization element as taught in Gibson. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Huber in view of Jayaram in view of Monaco in view of Gibson teaches:
“The method according to claim 17 (Huber in view of Jayaram in view of Monaco in view of Gibson teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein obtaining the master digital document includes generating, by the computer, the master digital document having the first set of features based upon one or more user inputs received via a user interface of a signing-user (Gibson, Fig. 7, ¶ 234 teaches compliance audit certificate which is checked for a valid certificate and stored on a blockchain indicating the signing user), wherein the one or more user inputs indicate the one or more permissions of the master digital document (Gibson, Fig. 8, ¶ 247-248 teaches document image with a QR code pointing to information related to processing the document and its permissions)”.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen T Gundry whose telephone number is (571) 270-0507. 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/STEPHEN T GUNDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights