DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed on April 10, 2025. Claims 1-17 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on April 10, 2025 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aggarwal et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20170200244 A1), hereinafter, Aggarwal.
Regarding claim 1:
Aggarwal teaches:
A method for eliminating digital signing delays in online conferences, comprising:
starting, by a presenter, an online conference having a plurality of conference participants, the participants including the presenter an at least one other participant (paragraph 0018 discloses plurality of participants in a online conference);
monitoring, by at least one bot run by a device that hosts the online conference or is communicatively connected to the device that hosts the online conference, a discussion in the online conference regarding one or more document(s) of the discussion (paragraph 0039 discloses an electronic signature server system 110 (bot) monitors the communications between participants of the online conference. Paragraph 0019 discloses participants discussing about an agreement (document) as stated “In another embodiment, in addition to the above, the participants engage in a video or audio conference within the social messaging application. For example, the social messaging application presents an option for initiating a voice or video conference with one or more of the other participants. During the audio or video conference, the participants discuss and make edits to an agreement.”. Fig. 1 shows the electronic signature server system 110 communicatively coupled to the participants.);
collecting, by the at least one bot, consents from the conference participants regarding the one or more document(s) of the discussion (Fig. 4, step 410, discloses obtaining conversation information from participants about the agreement as explained in paragraph 0062);
analyzing, by the at least one bot, responses of the conference participants regarding the one or more document(s) of the discussion (Fig. 4, steps 420 and 430, discloses analyzing the conversation information as explained in paragraphs 0063 and 0064);
signing, by the at least one bot, one or more document(s), in case all the responses of the conference participants analyzed during the analyzing are positive (paragraph 0059 discloses the electronic server system inserts signatures of all participant in the agreement document as stated “Upon authenticating all participants of the electronic document, the electronic signature server system 110 inserts digital signatures representing the signatures of the participants into the signature portion of the electronic document, thereby generating an authenticated electronic document”); and
sharing, by the at least one bot, the signed one or more document(s) with the conference participants (paragraph 0059 discloses sharing the authenticated agreement document to all participants as stated “The authenticated electronic document is transmitted to computing devices 100a-b so that participants of the conversation receive copies of the authenticated electronic document.”).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aggarwal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Aggarwal further teaches wherein the method further comprises: collecting additional consents from the conference participants in case the responses of the conference participants are not all positive (paragraph 0019 discloses editing the agreement document based on further discussion as stated “During the audio or video conference, the participants discuss and make edits to an agreement.”).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aggarwal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Aggarwal further teaches wherein the method further comprises: requesting, by the at least one bot, approval from each participant for signing the one or more document(s) (paragraph 0059 discloses requesting authentication credentials as approval for the signing the agreement document as stated “Electronic signature applications 104a-b receive the informal electronic document and present user interfaces to the users of computing devices 100a-b for entering in authentication credentials.”).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aggarwal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Aggarwal further teaches wherein the signing the one or more document(s) is performed independently for the participants (paragraph 0059 discloses signing is performed independently for each participant ).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aggarwal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Aggarwal further teaches wherein the method further comprises interacting, by the at least one bot, with the respective participant in order to authenticate him/her (paragraph 0059 discloses the electronic signature server 110 interacts with participants for authentication credentials).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aggarwal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Aggarwal further teaches wherein authentication of the conference participants is performed by using a password, a fingerprint, voice signatures and/or face recognition (paragraph 0059 discloses the authentication credentials includes password, fingerprint, retina recognition).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Aggarwal teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as shown above.
Aggarwal further teaches comprising communication devices of the conference participants that are communicatively connectable to a device hosting the online conference (Fig. 1 shows computing devices of the participants are communicatively coupled to the electronic signature server 110).
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a program code, which, when being executed by a processor, is adapted to carry out anyone of the steps of the method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium performing the method of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium performing the method of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium performing the method of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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, 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.
Claims 5, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal in view of Zhou (An NPL with Title “Study on Ring Signature and Its Application ”), hereinafter, Zhou.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aggarwal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Aggarwal does not teach wherein the signing the one or more document(s) is performed with a ring signature.
Zhou teaches wherein the signing the one or more document(s) is performed with a ring signature (Section 2 discloses ring signature ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aggarwal to incorporate the teaching of Zhou about ring signature. One would be motivated to do that because ring signature can be verified without revealing the identity of the signer to enhance the privacy of the signer (see Section 2 of Zhou).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Aggarwal in view of Zhou teach all the limitations of claim 5 as shown above.
Aggarwal does not teach wherein the method further comprises: signing, for the presenter of the conference, the one or more document(s) for all participants included in the ring signature, or signing, for any other conference participant, the one or more document(s) for all participants included in the ring.
Zhou teaches wherein the signing the one or more document(s) is performed with a ring signature (Section 2 discloses any member can generate ring signature ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aggarwal to incorporate the teaching of Zhou about any member can generating ring signature. One would be motivated to do that to minimize delay and resource usage in large group signing (see Section 2 of Zhou).
Claim 17 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium performing the method of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal in view
of Ramoutar et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20230245254 A1), hereinafter, Ramoutar.
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Aggarwal teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Aggarwal does not explicitly teach wherein the analyzing the responses of the participants is performed using machine learning (ML), and/or artificial intelligence (AI) techniques.
Ramoutar teaches wherein the analyzing the responses of the participants is performed using machine learning (ML), and/or artificial intelligence (AI) techniques (paragraph 0035 discloses participant’s communications are analyzed by machine learning model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aggarwal to incorporate the teaching of Ramoutar about using machine learning model . One would be motivated to do that to automate the process to improve the efficiency (see paragraph 0035 of Ramoutar).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Aggarwal teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as shown above.
Aggarwal does not teach wherein the ML/AI techniques are selected from Natural Language Processing, NLP, techniques, speech to text techniques and/or pattern recognition techniques.
Ramoutar teaches wherein the ML/AI techniques are selected from Natural Language Processing, NLP, techniques, speech to text techniques and/or pattern recognition techniques (paragraph 0040 discloses ML technique includes neural network. Paragraph 0034 discloses speech to text transcription).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aggarwal to incorporate the teaching of Ramoutar about using machine learning model pattern recognition or speech to text conversion. One would be motivated to do that to automate the process to improve the efficiency (see paragraph 0035 Ramoutar).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
June 1, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights