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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 30 July 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,632 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 30 July 2026, claims 21, 31, and 36 are amended per Applicant's request. Claims 1-20 are cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 21-40 are presently pending in the application, of which claims 21 and 31 are presented in independent form.
The previously raised objection to claim 36 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claim.
The previously raised non-statutory double patenting rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the filed terminal disclaimer.
The previously raised 103 rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. A new ground(s) of rejection has been issued.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 July 2026 with respect to the non-statutory double patenting rejection of the claims (see Remarks, p. 7) has been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn in view of the filed terminal disclaimer.
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 July 2026 with respect to the objection of claim 36 (see Remarks, p. 7) has been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claim.
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see Remarks, p. 7-10) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference (and therefore also the new combination of references) being used in the current rejection.
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 21-40 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.
Independent Claims 21 and 31 recite “determining and displaying one or more prevailing contract terms of the electronic contract throughout a lifecycle of the electronic contract to reflect one or more state changes to the electronic contract”. The scope of this cannot be ascertained, e.g., whether this is a result that is being claimed, or whether this is simply an intended result.
For purposes of examination, the interpretation taken is that the changes are actively claimed, e.g., the system determines and displays one or more prevailing contract terms “reflecting one or more state changes to the electronic contract” throughout a lifecycle of the electronic contract, i.e., that the updated prevailing contract terms are displayed throughout the lifecycle of the electronic contract.
The rest of the dependent claims are rejected for at least by virtue of their dependency on their respective independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims.
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 21-22, 24-32, and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) US 11,113,771 B1, incorporating by reference Wang et al. (“IBR-Wang”) (Ser. No. 14/097,057 or US 2016/0275627 A1) at [20:36-38]), in view of Wodetzki et al. (“Wodetzki”) (US 2018/0268506 A1).
Regarding claim 21: Wang teaches A computer-implemented method comprising:
using a server computer system, receiving an update to an attribute of an object-based, digitally stored [document] model of an electronic [document] (Wang, [28:31-60], where the system includes calculation graph(s) 14 and completeness model(s), such as completeness graphs 12 (i.e., “digital[] [document] model”)1. See Wang, [28:61-67]-[29:1-29], where a user selects one or more nodes of the tax calculation graph 14 to selectably configure such node(s) as, e.g., a “user enterable node” (i.e., “receiving an update to an attribute of a digital[] [document] model”), resulting in function node 26d being selected as the target node and input nodes 24a-24i being rendered unnecessary.
See Wang, [33:39-56], where the disclosed tax preparation software 100 may reside on a server (i.e., “using a server computer system”). See Wang, [Claim 1], where the disclosed software application comprises a tax calculation graph and a plurality of decision tables representing a completion graph, the software application being stored in a non-transitory, computer-readable storage device (i.e., “stored [document] model”)), the [document] model having been created based on a digitally stored template that includes a … platform with a set of … rules (Wang, [9:31-67]-[10:1-13], where the calculation graph(s) are the result of breaking down tax legislation/tax rules, which were parsed and broken into various topics (i.e., “rules”). See Wang, [16:30-58], where the tax preparation software 100 uses XML schemas, e.g., based on the Modernized e-File (MeF) system (i.e., “platform”), and business rules (i.e., “digitally stored template that includes a … platform with a set of … rules”) to electronically prepare and transmit tax returns to tax reporting agencies, where the completeness graph 12 is used to determine when a particular schema (i.e., “template”) contains sufficient information such that a tax return can be prepared and filed (Wang, [10:14-40])), the template representing at least a portion of the electronic [document] (Wang, [23:11-52], where the TLA 60, in addition to the tax results described in Wang, [22:64-67]-[23:1-10] above, also outputs a tax data that is used to generate the actual tax return; thus, the described results of [22:64-67]-[23:1-10] represents “at least a portion of the electronic [document]”, as claimed), wherein the [document] model includes [document] metadata and represents the [document] as data via a single [document] object related to a … document, and wherein the template has … one or more editable input fields capable of being rendered in a graphical user interface (Wang, [6:31-44], where the granularity control engine of the tax logic agent is configured to generate a modified completeness model of the full completeness model for a particular tax topic (i.e., the completeness model being “a single [document] object related to a document”) in which each question and logic of the full completeness model (i.e., “the [document] model having been created based on a digitally stored template”), may be configured as not needed to complete the particular tax topic. In this way, the tax logic agent of the tax preparation software utilizing the sub-graph and the modified completeness model will not recommend questions directed to nodes leading to user enterable nodes (i.e., the nodes overall making up part of the claimed “metadata”, i.e., “wherein the [document] model includes [document] metadata”), thereby modifying the granularity of the questions requesting tax data for a taxpayer in preparing for a tax return.
See Wang, [20:31-52], where questions to present to the user are selected2 based at least in part upon user inputs or responses to certain questions (i.e., “one or more editable input fields”) and execution of generated rules), and one or more automatically calculated fields that are calculated automatically from the one or more editable input fields (Wang, [22:64-67]-[23:1-10], where the TLA 60 outputs a current tax result 65 which can be reflected on a display 104 of the computing device, e.g., illustrating a tax due amount or a refund amount, various other intermediate calculations or operations used to calculate tax liability, as well as penalty or tax credits);
obtaining, from a digital data storage, model description data and a plurality of answer values, the model description data describing the contract model (Wang, [16:30-58], where the tax return preparation system 40 calculates taxes using rules and calculations based on declarative data structures, and includes a shared data store 42 that contains a schema 44 or canonical model (i.e., “model description data”) representative to the data fields utilized or otherwise required to complete a tax return (i.e., “describing the [document] model”). See IBR-Wang, [0049], where the system receives a question and answer data structure or representation of questions and answers for a tax situation or topic (i.e., “model description data and a plurality of answer values”), and at 204, executes data structure or representation transformations, which are ultimately used to determine which questions to select to present to the user and whether a tax topic applies to the user);
based on the model description data and the plurality of answer values, creating and storing in computer memory a graph data representation of the plurality of answer values and variables that are required in a body of the contract document, wherein nodes of the graph represent the plurality of answer values and the variables, and edges of the graph represent derivations, calculations, or dependencies (Wang, [10:14-40], where the completeness graph 12 and tax calculation graph 14 are interdependent, and, taken collectively, represent data structures that capture all the conditions necessary to complete the computations require to complete a tax return that can be filed (i.e., “graph data representation of the answer data and variables that are required in the electronic [document]”). The completeness graph 12 determines when a particular schema contains sufficient information such that a tax return can be prepared and filed (i.e., “based on the model description data and the plurality of answer values, creating…a graph of the answer data and variables that are required in the electronic [document]”), and the individual combinations of completeness graphs 12 and tax calculation graphs 14 that relate to one or more topics can be used to complete the computations required for some sub-calculation (i.e., “answer data”), such as, e.g., a target node that is an endpoint node for a tax topic, such as gross income, adjusted gross income, etc., or even a final tax return result such as tax refund or tax owed (Wang, [28:61-67]-[29:1-16]) (i.e., “nodes of the graph representing the answer data and the variables”). See Wang, [1:36-61], where the tax calculation graph(s) are configured with a plurality of calculation paths wherein each calculation path connects a plurality of nodes which are data dependent (i.e., “edges of the graph representing derivations, calculations, or dependencies”).
See Wang, [Claim 1], where the disclosed computing device includes a non-transitory, computer-readable storage device that stores a software application that comprises a tax calculation graph and a plurality of decision tables representing a completion graph for completing all required data fields for computing the tax return. Thus in this manner, the graphs are stored in computer memory, as claimed);
based on the update to the attribute of the contract model, identifying and removing, from the graph data representation, one or more edges that are directed from first variables to second variables that the first variables had been declared as using (Wang, [11:3-15], where when certain questions internal to the completeness graph 12 are answered (i.e., “based on the update to the attribute of the…model”), this eliminates other nodes 20 and arcs 22 within the completeness graph, which allows one to minimize subsequent questions based on answers given to prior questions); [and]
based on the update to the attribute of the contract model, identifying and removing, from the graph data representation, one or more nodes corresponding respectively to one or more variables that are not directly referenceable by the contract document after the update and updating the contract metadata corresponding to the removing of the one or more edges and the one or more nodes (Wang, [11:3-15], where when certain questions internal to the completeness graph 12 are answered, this eliminates other nodes 20 and arcs 22 within the completeness graph, which allows one to minimize subsequent questions based on answers given to prior questions. See also Wang, [29:53-57]-[30:1-3], where the sub-graph engine of a tax calculation graph may be generated, and can exclude excluded nodes by deleting them from the tax calculation graph or by setting an excluded tag for the excluded nodes indicating the node is excluded (i.e., “automatically update the digitally stored contract model of the electronic contract, wherein the contract metadata is updated corresponding to the removing of the one or more edges and the one or more nodes”)3) … .
Wang does not appear to explicitly teach the document model is a contract model, that the document relates to a contract, and the platform and rules relates to drafting; wherein the template has a document identifier; [and] determining and displaying one or more prevailing contract terms of the electronic contract throughout a lifecycle of the electronic contract to reflect one or more state changes to the electronic contract.
Wodetzki teaches the document model is a contract model, that the document relates to a contract (Wodetzki, [0061], where the universal contract model represents a contract as data via a single contract object and relates that object to one or more contract documents), and the platform and rules relates to drafting a contract (Wodetzki, [0059], where the template based drafting platform includes a set of drafting rules, where template rules are used to generate a draft contract);
wherein the template has a document identifier (Wodetzki, [0066-0067], where a contract object contains a contract ID); [and]
determining and displaying one or more prevailing contract terms of the electronic contract throughout a lifecycle of the electronic contract to reflect one or more state changes to the electronic contract (Wodetzki, [0148], where the system allows a chain of contractual relationships to be created and presented automatically, based upon active contract terms. See Wodetzki, [0058], where a platform can ascertain, at any point in time the prevailing terms of the contract. Prevailing terms are rolled-up to the Contract Object type, which allows the platform to present to a user the then-current terms of the contract at any point in time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang and Wodetzki (hereinafter “Wang as modified”) with the motivation of expanding the application to broader business operations (e.g., contracts which need to be monitored, approved reviewed, and performed), and ensuring timely visibility into a contract portfolio (Wodetzki, [0002]), as well as reducing the chances of misunderstanding and/or confusion on the part of users as contracts change over time, e.g., by tracking prevailing terms (see, e.g., Wodetzki, [0006]).
Regarding claim 22: Wang as modified teaches The method of claim 21, further comprising, during the identifying and removing, marking the edges that are removed as deflated (Wang, [29:53-57]-[30:1-3], where the sub-graph engine of a tax calculation graph may be generated, and can exclude excluded nodes by deleting them from the tax calculation graph or by setting an excluded tag for the excluded nodes indicating the node is excluded).
Although Wang does not appear to explicitly state that the same excluded tag is applied to the edges, Wang is equivalent to the claimed invention in that, whether it is the edge or the node that is marked as excluded, the system will ignore that particular path/edge. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Wang to tag, i.e., “mark” removed edges as deflated as claimed (or in Wang’s case, marking as “excluded”) with predictably equivalent operating characteristics, with the motivation of ensuring that the system does not traverse paths to excluded nodes.
Regarding claim 24: Wang as modified teaches The method of claim 21, wherein the updated contract metadata is copied into a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) model (Wodetzki, [0029], where the system had determined prevailing terms of the contract by evaluating all child contract transaction objects to build a single set of contract data variables (and their values) (i.e., “updated contract metadata”) for storage in the contract object, and storing the prevailing terms in the contract object, e.g., in JSON format (Wodetzki, [Claim 6])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang and Wodetzki with the motivation of taking advantage of object-oriented programming which allows for reuse of code through inheritance as well as flexibility; and representing data as a JSON object which is lightweight and fast to parse, resulting in increased performance and smaller footprint (on disk and memory)4, particularly for JavaScript-based web applications, in which web applications can avoid the overhead of converting to and from other data formats (leading to leaner processing times and a smaller memory footprint for the application)5.
Regarding claim 25: Wang as modified teaches The method of Claim 21, further comprising, in response to identifying and removing the one or more nodes, flagging one or more areas of a data record with reset-answer flags to prompt the one or more areas of the data record to be re-asked in subsequent updates to the contract document (Wang, [4:25-57], where even after a selection of additional user enterable node(s), there may still be one or more open path(s), where the sub-graph engine 200 iteratively advises the user that there are still open paths and to select additional user enterable node(s) or to generate the sub-graph with the open path(s). It is possible that the selection of user enterable nodes may be invalid, e.g., two interdependent user enterable nodes may be inconsistent with the proper tax calculations, the sub-graph requests a revised selection of user enterable nodes, and upon receiving that revised selection of user enterable nodes, the sub-graph engine 200 may remove node 28 from the selection of user enterable nodes. The sub-graph engine 200 repeats the interdependency check for the revised selection of user enterable nodes, and repeats the processes described above to determine the final sub-graph 204 based upon the revised and valid selection of user enterable nodes).
Although Wang does not appear to explicitly state that the open path(s) (i.e., the claimed “one or more areas of the data record”) are “flagged”, Wang discloses that the sub-graph engine may iteratively identify that there are open path(s). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang to explicitly include such an indicator with the motivation of performing a quick Boolean flag check, which is efficient in terms of computation and resource/storage.
Regarding claim 26: Wang as modified teaches The method of Claim 21, further comprising, in response to identifying and removing, from the graph data representation, the one or more edges, generating a deflated-record flag indicating the one or more edges have been deflated (Wang, [29:53-57]-[30:1-3], where the sub-graph engine of a tax calculation graph may be generated, and can exclude excluded nodes by deleting them from the tax calculation graph or by setting an excluded tag (i.e., “deflated-record flag”) for the excluded nodes indicating the node is excluded).
Although Wang does not appear to explicitly state that the same excluded tag is applied to the edges, Wang is equivalent to the claimed invention in that, whether it is the edge or the node that is marked as excluded, the system will ignore that particular path/edge. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Wang to tag, i.e., “mark” removed edges as deflated as claimed (or in Wang’s case, marking as “excluded”) with predictably equivalent operating characteristics, with the motivation of ensuring that the system does not traverse paths to excluded nodes.
Regarding claim 27: Wang as modified teaches The method of Claim 21, wherein the graph data representation of the plurality of answer values and variables that are required in the electronic contract comprises one or more phrases of the electronic contract linked one-to-many times with the attributes and contract objects (Wang, [10:14-40], where the completeness graph 12 and tax calculation graph 14 are interdependent, and, taken collectively, represent data structures that capture all the conditions necessary to complete the computations require to complete a tax return that can be filed. The completeness graph 12 determines when a particular schema contains sufficient information such that a tax return can be prepared and filed, and the individual combinations of completeness graphs 12 and tax calculation graphs 14 that relate to one or more topics can be used to complete the computations required for some sub-calculation.
See Wang, [FIG. 6A] and [13:66-67]-[14:1-10, where a tax calculation graph may comprise of interconnected functional nodes containing data dependent tax concepts or topics (i.e., “contract objects”) associated with a discrete set of functions 28 (i.e., “attributes”) that are used to capture domain specific patterns and semantic abstractions used in the tax calculation, including, e.g., copy, capping, thresholding, accumulation or adding, look-up operations, phase out calculations, comparison calculations, exemptions, exclusions, etc. See Wang, [23:61-67]-[24:1-55], where data store 42 contains the pre-stored narratives (i.e., “one or more phrases of the [document]”) that may be mapped or otherwise tagged to particular functional nodes 26 (i.e., “contract objects”) and associated functions 28 (i.e., “attributes”) contained within the calculation graph(s) 14. The narrative explanation is generated by extracting a stored function 28, e.g., a “cap” function, with the particular functional node 26, e.g., an explanation of “value exceeds cap”. A particular functional node 26 and associated function 28 may have multiple pre-stored narratives (i.e., “one or more phrases…linked to one-to-many times with attributes and contract objects”)).
Regarding claim 28: Wang as modified teaches The method of Claim 21, wherein the contract model is a data semantic representation of terms of the electronic contract, including parties, term, termination provisions, payment and performance provisions, and risk allocation provisions (Wodetzki, [0065], where the contract data model is a data/semantic representation of the parties, promises, and meaning embodied in the terms of any contract. The data model organizes the data inside a contract into certain categories including the parties, the term and termination provisions, the payment and performance provisions, risk allocation provisions, etc.).
Regarding claim 29: Wang as modified teaches The method of Claim 21, wherein the contract document comprises one or more identifier properties, text content, tables, and appendices; and wherein the template has a document identifier, one or more document section identifiers, a structured data identifier, one or more logic identifiers, and one or more candidate edit identifiers (Wang, [13:14-39], where the document pertains to a tax document that may have data extracted from it, including, e.g., name and social security number (i.e., “identifier properties”), address (i.e., “text content”), etc. See, e.g., Wang, [16:30-58], where the tax preparation software 100 uses XML schemas, e.g., based on the Modernized e-File (MeF) system (i.e., “platform”), and business rules (i.e., “digitally stored template that includes a … platform with a set of … rules”) to electronically prepare and transmit tax returns to tax reporting agencies, where the completeness graph 12 is used to determine when a particular schema (i.e., “template”) contains sufficient information such that a tax return can be prepared and filed (Wang, [10:14-40])).
Although Wang does not appear to explicitly state that the document and schema contains certain types of information, the claimed invention does not distinguish over the prior art because the differences in the claim limitations and the prior art’s disclosure are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Each of the claimed steps would have been performed the same regardless of the specific data involved (i.e., the claimed data, tax-related data as disclosed by Wang, or some other data). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ2d 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have referred to Wang’s teachings in making the claimed invention, because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Regarding claim 30: Wang as modified teaches The method of claim 21, wherein the answer values are generated based upon input received via an interactive interview (Wang, [22:43-63], where the UI controller 80 interfaces with the share data store 42 such that data that is entered by a user in response to the user interface presentation 84 can be transferred or copied to the shared data store 42. The new or updated data is then reflected in the updated instantiated representation of the schema 44. In response to a user interface presentation 84 that is generated, e.g., an interview screen, a user inputs data to the tax preparation software (i.e., “interactive interview”).
See IBR-Wang, [0059-0060], where the system begins by receiving a flow chart 610 including a pre-determined sequence 612 of questions and answers for determining whether a particular tax topic applies to the user 415. Rules 462 are generated following multiple transformations of a data structure or representation of a pre-determined sequence of questions 532 and answers 533, i.e., rules 462 are executed based at least in part upon user answers or input 533 (i.e., “the answer values having been created based upon input received”), to eliminate or invalidate certain generated rules 462 and determine which questions 532 should be selected for presentation to the user).
Regarding claim 31: Claim 31 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 21, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Note that Wang teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more sequences of stored program instructions which, when executed using one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to automatically execute [the claimed steps] (Wang, [Claim 1], where the disclosed system includes a computing device having a computer processor and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage device having a software application executable by the computer processor. See also Wang, [35:37-51], where the system 40 and its components may be embodied in a computer-readable medium and/or data communication devices connected to a computer, where the processor 304 performs steps or executes program instructions 302 within memory 300 to implement the disclosed steps).
Regarding claim 32: Claim 32 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 22, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 34: Claim 34 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 24, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 35: Claim 35 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 25, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 36: Claim 36 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 26, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 37: Claim 37 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 27, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 38: Claim 38 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 28, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 39: Claim 39 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 29, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 40: Claim 40 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 30, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) US 11,113,771 B1, incorporating by reference Wang et al. (“IBR-Wang”) (Ser. No. 14/097,057 or US 2016/0275627 A1) at [20:36-38]), in view of Wodetzki et al. (“Wodetzki”) (US 2018/0268506 A1), in further view of Venkatraman et al. (“Venkatraman”) (US 2021/0248556 A1).
Regarding claim 23: Wang as modified teaches The method of claim 21, but does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising: performing a check-in process that verifies one or more pre-conditions associated with the electronic contract; and providing a summary of the update to the digitally stored contract model.
Venkatraman teaches performing a check-in process that verifies one or more pre-conditions associated with the electronic contract (Venkatraman, [0101-0102], where a user logs into the system, and the system determines the user’s permissions and allowed actions, and creates steps associated with the allowed actions in the document for each collaborator of the document. The collaborators work on the document with their assigned permissions and allowed actions. See also Venkatraman, [0117], where a permission set comprising permissible actions are generated for a user); and providing a summary of the update to the digitally stored contract model (Venkatraman, [0105], where the system manages interactions associated with any request action and automatically sequences a workflow from a live document in real time, where when a user initiates a requests or a seek action, the system receives metadata of the action, and generates the permission set, as well as determining an anonymity requirement. See Venkatraman, [0224], where metadata of a sent document and an update to a workflow sequence is generated by the system. The system renders information about a document in a unified dashboard (i.e., “summary”). See also, e.g., Venkatraman, [0128-0129], where when a user seeks approval from ApprX, and after ApprX gives approval on the document, the system updates the document status from “seek approval” to “closed” (i.e., “update of the digitally stored [document metadata]”). See Wang above with regards to the “contract” and “model”6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang as modified and Venkatraman with the motivation of having a check-in process to ensure that users have the proper permissions with regards to performing certain actions on a particular document, as well as facilitating collaboration between users via the summary of the update.
Regarding claim 33: Claim 33 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 23, and is rejected for the same reasons.
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 IRENE BAKER whose telephone number is (408)918-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5PM PT.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/IRENE BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
8 October 2026
1 See Wang, [10:14-40], where the calculation graphs and completeness graphs are interdependent, and collectively represent data structures capturing all conditions necessary to complete computations required to complete a tax return that can be filed. Thus, hereinafter, references to one or both of the calculation graph(s) 14 and completeness model(s)/graph(s) represents the claimed “digitally stored [document] model”.
2 See IBR-Wang, [0077], where the pre-determined sequence of questions can be presented to the user to allow the user to fully respond to all pertinent questions within the interview screens of the tax preparation application 420 (i.e., “the template…capable of being rendered in a graphical user interface”).
3 See Specification, [0027], where “The contract model, as a whole, constitutes metadata for a contract”. Therefore, because Wang’s graph, i.e., model, is modified, this corresponds to both the claimed model and the metadata being updated, i.e., Wang’s deletion of nodes or setting of a flag pertaining to the claimed contract metadata.
4 Moore et al. US 2010/0185862 A1 at [0052].
5 Bedard et al. US 2014/0149839 A1 at [0024].
6 As stated previously, because Specification, [0027] states that “The contract model, as a whole, constitutes metadata for a contract”, Wang’s model essentially comprises of metadata, and Venkatraman discloses updating metadata, which, when combined with Wang’s disclosure, would be updating the metadata in Wang’s model, i.e., “updat[ing] the digitally stored [document] model”, as claimed.
Prosecution Insights