DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 10/10/2025.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1-16 are cancelled. Claims 17 and 22 are amended. Claims 27-32 are new claims. Claim 17-32 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Response to Arguments/Comments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments do not recite an improvement to technology or a computer's functions, rather they discuss a process/business improvement of capturing a check image. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices or commercial or legal interactions,) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Inti v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, and 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a) (Il).
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.
Claims 17-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application) without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, claims 17 and 22 are method claims, which are all within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process).
Claims 17-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claim 17 cites: (claims 22 being similar in scope):
Claim 1:
capturing, with an optical camera of a smartphone, an image that includes a physical check filled out by a user;
automatically processing the captured image by, in order: (i) converting the image to grayscale; (ii) sharpening the image by applying a Gaussian smoothing filter and subtracting a smoothed version from the original image; (iii) thresholding the sharpened image to a binary image; (iv) performing morphological erosion to remove noise; (v) detecting contours and selecting a rectangular contour within defined minimum and maximum area thresholds corresponding to a check boundary; and (vi) cropping a rectangular region of interest corresponding to the physical check;
recognizing, from the cropped image using an optical character recognition engine, a bank routing number and a checking account number;
generating a virtual check image from the cropped image of the physical check;
receiving, via a user interface on the smartphone, a virtual signature from the user;
encrypting the virtual signature using a symmetric cryptographic algorithm and storing the encrypted virtual signature in a database;
decrypting the encrypted virtual signature and embedding the virtual signature in the virtual check image;
writing, as metadata of the virtual check image, a transaction identifier and a timestamp;
encrypting and storing, in the database, the recognized bank routing number and checking account number;
transmitting, via HTTPS protected with a transport layer security (TLS) protocol authenticated by digital certificates, the virtual check image having the embedded virtual signature from the smartphone to a transaction-processing server for deposit; and
after a predetermined time, obscuring a MICR line of the stored virtual check image; wherein steps (b)(i)-(vi) provide rectangular detection of the check that isolates the check from background clutter to facilitate OCR from a single captured image, including images that contain multiple checks.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon MPEP 2106.04, see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (issued October 17, 2019) (“2019 PEG Update”).
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing, 1) fundamental economic principles or practices; 2) commercial or legal interactions, under the Certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea, recited above, includes:
capturing, with an optical camera of a smartphone, an image that includes a physical check filled out by a user;
recognizing, from the cropped image using an optical character recognition engine, a bank routing number and a checking account number;
generating a virtual check image from the cropped image of the physical check;
receiving, via a user interface on the smartphone, a virtual signature from the user;
writing, as metadata of the virtual check image, a transaction identifier and a timestamp;
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations commercial interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – 1) fundamental economic principles or practices; 2) commercial or legal interactions, under the Certain methods of organizing human activity, grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04, see also 2019 PEG Update.
The additional positive elements are: (b) automatically processing the captured image by, in order: (i) converting the image to grayscale; (ii) sharpening the image by applying a Gaussian smoothing filter and subtracting a smoothed version from the original image; (iii) thresholding the sharpened image to a binary image; (iv) performing morphological erosion to remove noise; (v) detecting contours and selecting a rectangular contour within defined minimum and maximum area thresholds corresponding to a check boundary; and (vi) cropping a rectangular region of interest corresponding to the physical check;
(f) encrypting the virtual signature using a symmetric cryptographic algorithm and storing the encrypted virtual signature in a database;
(g) decrypting the encrypted virtual signature and embedding the virtual signature in the virtual check image;
(j) transmitting, via HTTPS protected with a transport layer security (TLS) protocol authenticated by digital certificates, the virtual check image having the embedded virtual signature from the smartphone to a transaction-processing server for deposit; and
(k) after a predetermined time, obscuring a MICR line of the stored virtual check image; wherein steps (b)(i)-(vi) provide rectangular detection of the check that isolates the check from background clutter to facilitate OCR from a single captured image, including images that contain multiple checks” in claim 17, which amounts to linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, some of the abovesaid step, i.e., encrypting step is recited at very high level without any specificity and does not turn abstract idea into practical application.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements that are just “applying it” or “generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e. an optical camera; smartphone; etc. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination.
Claims 18-21 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of claim 17 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claim 18 describes other way of transmitting OTP via a text message; claims 19 and 26 each describes rejecting the transaction if OTP is incorrect; claims 20 and 25 each describes storing timestamp and transaction ID of the signature and check image; claim 25 describes applying a median blur; claim 28 describes computing a bounding rectangle of the selected contour and slicing the image; claim 31 describes retrieving a payee signature; claim 32 describe blurring or delting at least a portion of a MICR line, which all of the limitation are narrowing the steps performed in claim 17.
Claims 21 and 24 directed to nonfunctional descriptive material of a smartphone. Claim 23 is also directed to nonfunctional descriptive material of a symmetric encryption algorithm. Claim 29 describes the metadata; claim 30 describes TLS protocol; etc. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules.
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 17-32 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 17 contains allowable subject matter. As per claim 17, the closest prior art of record, US20140067661A1 to Elischer, teaches a system and method for generating a virtual bank check. What is missing from Elischer is the fact that Elischer does not teach the ordered combination of: (b) automatically processing the captured image by, in order: (i) converting the image to grayscale; (ii) sharpening the image by applying a Gaussian smoothing filter and subtracting a smoothed version from the original image; (iii) thresholding the sharpened image to a binary image; (iv) performing morphological erosion to remove noise; (v) detecting contours and selecting a rectangular contour within defined minimum and maximum area thresholds corresponding to a check boundary; and (vi) cropping a rectangular region of interest corresponding to the physical check. Overall, the other closest prior arts are: 1) Thiele et al. (US9619789B1); Lawson (US20090261158A1); Ho et al. (US11049180B1). Claims 18-21 depend on claim 17; therefore they are allowable because of dependency on claim 17. In addition, claim 22 is analogous to claim 17, and thus contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. As such, dependent claims 23-32 are also allowable for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, necessitated by amendment. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm 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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699
2/6/2026
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699