CTFR 17/709,954 CTFR 78601 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1, 6-7, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (see claim 12) a method based on organized human activity (fundamental economic transaction and/or mental process, such as transferring funds electronically). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are drawn to the abstract idea being performed by generic computer components such as various recited units (operation panel, and communicator and controller per claim 1) , which are broadly recited can be interpreted as computer processor/ software/ modules performing generic computer functions such as routine data gathering as it pertains to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely are applying the judicial exception to a particular environment. Re claim 12, the limitations of the registering (receiving data) is routine data gathering as part of the abstract idea, or mental concepts as pre solution to the actual transferring, the displaying is either insignificant mid solution activity of displaying, or is part of the abstract idea, (mental) namely MPEP 2106.04.a.2.III.A ( a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind , Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A ., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); the obtaining is routine data gathering as part of the abstract idea and thus is a mental step, and the instructing is the execution of the abstract idea, merely applying the abstract idea for a particular transfer/ insignificant post solution activity. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Registering and receiving data is routine data gathering. Displaying is insignificant post solution activity. Performing OCR is math/ mental processes performed by generic computer components. Executing the transfer is just the completion of the judicial exception in a particular environment. Re the newly added limitations of registering position information, this again is seen as meth/ mental processes as part of routine data gathering. Image data attached to emails is routine data gathering using generic computer components, and is similar to automating mental steps (receiving an invoice/ bill in an envelope). The newly added limitations of performing OCR at the positions, this is executing math/ mental processes by generic computer components, which is automating a mental process (pen and paper). The newly added limitations of displaying is insignificant post solution activity similar to displaying results. The use of confirmation screens are automating steps of a generic computer. When results do not coincide, providing displays is mental steps being performed by generic computer devices. Claims 13 and 1 are the corresponding computer readable medium and apparatus claims, and are rejected for similar reasons. The dependent claims merely specify details of the abstracta idea and are rejected for similar reasons. Re claim 6, is drawn to specifying details of the organization/ displaying of data, which is mental steps/ generic computer implementation of mental steps. Re claim 7, the limitations are drawn to specifying details of the mental steps of organizing data. Re claim 9, the limitations are drawn to routine data gathering, generic displaying of data, and mental processes/ sorting data. Appropriate correction is requested. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 6-7, 9, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 20200387878) in view of Chan et al. (US 20210272084), Zair (US 20050278250) Kobayashi et al.(US 20220044012) and Kapoor et al. (US 9454526) . Jones et al. teaches registering a transmission source email address indicating a transmission source of a document/ email including information necessary for transfer processing using a server apparatus providing banking services (paragraph [0086]+ teaches a list of bill payees such as payee name or identifier can be used to setup the list of desired payees), which is interpreted as indicating a source of image data because the bill is image data and the transmission source can be interpreted as the sender or the recipient. Paragraph [0067+] teaches that defined criteria can include an email address or account associated with the merchant/ recipient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to register emails indicating a source, in order to organize/ sort them. This is interpreted as a controller that registers, as a controller is implicit in the system (FIG. 1+). A controller/ processor and storage is implicit. Re the limitation of an operation panel that receives selection of a destination by a user, this is intpereted to be taught via the display and the interfaces as per FIG. 6 and paragraph [0051]+). As client records include recipients selected by the transferor, it would have been obvious to receive a selection in order to provide the recipient. Re the limitation that the operation panel displays a list including one more pieces of image data received from one or more transmission sources associated with the selected transfer destination, FIG. 5 is intpereted as image data received from a transmission source associated with the transfer destination (recipient). Re the limitation of selection of the image data from the list, the button 510 is interpreted as selecting it. Image data is received such as the email 500 or via the online portal at 510 where the statement is linked. This is intpereted as a communicator as the image data (attached to email as per the Applicants specification) is communicated. Jones et al. teaches displaying one or more pieces of transmission source information of one or more pieces of image data received by the receiving unit, the transmission source information being associated with the destination selected by a user, as discussed above, wherein the bill displayed displays a source (to whom the bill was created by, which is also the transfer destination selected by the user, such as recipient address 502 that is stored in a payee list at server 120. Jones et al. teaches the controller obtains via OCR from the messages corresponding to the transmission source information from the pieces of source information, as discussed above, where OCR is performed on an email/ bill. It would have been obvious to display a character from the character information as part of authorizing/ confirming bill payment, as shown in FIG. 6, wherein a payee (destination) information is provided and FIG. 5 where both destination and source information are provided. Displaying of character can be read on by displaying information that includes at least one character, such as payee or payor related information, such as an amount due, for example. At paragraph [0085]+ Jones et al. teaches OCR or image recognition operations, and while it would have been obvious, Jones et al. is silent to performing such operations on image data wherein the image data is attached to the email per FIG. 5. Jones et al. teaches executing the transaction (see FIG 6). Jones et al. teaches a confirming an amount of money based on the character information (FIG. 6, wherein authorize payment at 606 is provided). This is interpreted as confirming. Even further, though silent, a confirmation screen indicating the completion of a transaction is an obvious expedient for record keeping purposes and would have been obvious for such expected results. Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the controller/ processor to instruct the banking service to execute the transfer displayed in the confirmation screen to complete the transaction. Paragraph [0069]+ teaches the message server transmits to the server a query result such as the identifying the bill payment notification email, which is either parsed or transmitted to the server to obtain the parameters of the message/ bill payment notification. Subsequently a request alert is provided to the client device including the set of values and a selectable option. The selectable option can include confirming or ignoring. This is broadly interpreted as displaying an email list in that its data representing an email, which is consistent with the Applicants list 901, where the list is not contents of the email. The teachings of Jones et al. provides the message prompt to the user because the system received an email, and thus the art is interpreted as displaying a list of one email and the user is selecting it via their approving the payment message request. Further, paragraph [0086]+ teaches that the processor can scan the messages to identify the payee and further teaches adding new names to display a desired email/ invoice, such as to identify new or updated invoices (paragraph [0088]+). Additionally, paragraph [0038]+ teaches that the transferor can log into the portal and view/ download invoices and pay, interpreted as selecting what invoices/ emails, as in prior art systems. The apparatus is interpreted as operable to process transfers with a server and/or functionally equivalent networked/online banking services as known in the art (network 150). As discussed above, FIG. 5 teaches clicking a button on an email to view a statement, and executing transfer processing (FIG. 6), but is silent to OCR on an image attached to the email, as Jones et al. is silent to explicitly reciting an image, though image recognition is taught in paragraph [0018]+. Chan et al. teaches extracting data from an email or an invoice or bill attached to an email (paragraph [0054]+) and [0081]+). Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform OCR on an image of a bill/ invoice attached such as to extract necessary data when the invoice is not in the email but is attached, for example. Though silent to specified “units” (communicator, operation panel, controller), the controller is intpereted as implicit as the processor/ CPU for the system per FIG. 1, the operation panel is intpereted as display/ display modules for displaying information, and the communicator is interpreted as a module/ software that is run in order to communicate information (send/ receive data) as part of the system operation (FIG. 1+). As the system communicates information and displays operations, it is interpreted as functionally equivalent to communication and operation panel limitations, as the software executed and/with the processor by the system functionality reads on the various “units”, absent a more explicit positively recited limitation that precludes such interpretation, as the prior art functionally appears to perform the steps of the units with the prior art system configuration. The selection of image data is interpreted as viewing the bill attachment and the selection of a transfer destination is intpereted as processing/ selecting the payment of the bill to the selected payee. The Examiner notes that the destination information and email address are interpreted as associated with each other, as the email address is used for payment (see paragraph [0119] for example. The limitations of executing a process are interpreted by the user clicking the “Authorize Payment” button in FIG. 6, wherein a list of an email is interpreted to be read on by the displaying of the payment request message as discussed above re claim 1. The Examiner notes that re previous claim 3, paragraph [0027]+ teaches adding new recipients, thus it would have been obvious that upon completing a new transaction including adding new email addresses that the destination and email be registered with each other, such as for record keeping, and for future ease (convenience). FIG. 1+ teaches a resource server, message server teaching client, account, and resource records, thus obviating registering data on completion of a transaction for record keeping purposes. Additionally, paragraph [0104]+ teaches performing a transaction including data transfer from a sender to a recipient. It would have been obvious to register the information in association with each other as basic record keeping/ logging of transactions as is known in the art, or for convenience for future transactions to be selected from a list, which is interpreted by the Examiner to be implicitly performed by the processor of the system (FIG. 1+), which is functionally equivalent to the controller. Jones et al./ Chan et al. are silent to the newly added limitations of the controller registering position information indicating positions as recited. Zair teaches such limitations (paragraph [0055]+). Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to intelligently recognize for efficiency and accuracy. The emails as taught above are obviated to have image data such as the bill attached. Further, the Examiner notes that as scanned images in a memory with predetermined coordinates being used for different information’s on the bill, obviate that when processing a bill, the various data are obtained by such processing of the data in the various registered positions. Therefore, re the new limitations of performing OCR on the image data at the positions indicated, that the teachings of Zair teach such limitations as discussed above. Re the newly added limitation of the confirmation screen to confirm information when there is no coincidence of data, Jones et al./ Chan et al./ Zair are silent to such limitations. Kobayashi et al. generally teaches such limitations (paragraph [0274]+ and FIG. 20). Though silent to the specific details as recited with regard to the confirmation screen, the Examiner note that Kobayashi et al. recognizes the inconsistency and provides for remedy/ correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to either confirm or change, based on the desired outcome. Therefore, merely providing a specific interface/ display for such operations would have been an obvious expedient to provide for correction. The Examiner notes that transfer destination from the image is obtained as it is the payee. Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for manual option for data entry to ensure correctness of data. Re the newly added limtaitosn that the emails have attached image data (the invoice/ bill), Jones teaches invoice information in the email itself or viewable at a portable, but is silent to the processing being performed on the image data attached to the email. Kapoor et al. teaches an email attached invoice can be processed by OCR for processing and predetermined tags (col 38, lines 64+). Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to perform the processing on bills/ invoice that are sent attached to the email and not just in the email body itself, such as for security are versatility. Though silent, selection of the image/ attachment from a list is an obvious expedient as a data entry means to select the desired invoice. Re claim 6, the limitations are taught by FIG. 6 which is interpreted as an instruction object. Re claim 7, paragraph [0067]+ teaches such limitations where a name such as a bank is taught. Re claim 9, an email address has been discussed above. Re claims 12-13 the limitations have been discussed above re claim 1+ . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner notes that registered transmission source specific position information to extract later received image data is merely automating a previously manual (by hand) process by using generic computer components. The use of OCR does not provide a practical application as that is intpereted as math/ mental steps being applied to data. The “learning” is merely the comparing of stored data to receive data in order to see if there is a match and then treating such data accordingly, doing what generic computer components do (send data, receive data, compared data, and output data and is similar to the concepts taught in Electric Power v. Alstom). There is not particular improvement to the computer, but the computer is merely being used as a tool for electronic processing of invoices/ bills attached to emails . Re the art rejection, the Examiner has cited new art, as discussed above. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm. 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, Steven Paik can be reached on 571-272-2404. 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. /DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876 Application/Control Number: 17/709,954 Page 2 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 17/709,954 Page 3 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 17/709,954 Page 4 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 17/709,954 Page 5 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 17/709,954 Page 6 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 17/709,954 Page 7 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 17/709,954 Page 8 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 17/709,954 Page 9 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 17/709,954 Page 10 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 17/709,954 Page 11 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 17/709,954 Page 12 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 17/709,954 Page 13 Art Unit: 2876
Prosecution Insights