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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Shi reference:
Applicant argues Shi does not “comparing, by a server, a second model, representing a second probability distribution of a second plurality of feature appearing in a second stream, to a first model, representing a first probability distribution of a first plurality of features appearing in a first stream”. Additionally, Shi’s comparison and similarity determined is not based on a “difference being greater than or equal to a threshold”.
Upon further review of the reference, and in light of the applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees as follows: Shi teaches a second model, which is a probability distribution (statistic histogram), as evidenced in figure 11. The probability distribution is a probability of plurality of features. Shi teaches such features as a plurality of characters as shown in figure 10. And the so-called “second stream” is a string of characters in figure 10 when inputting for processing. Shi also teaches another probability distribution in figure 9 as the claimed “first model”, which presents a first plurality of features. Such features are shown in figure 3-6 in Shi as string of characters. And Shi in paragraphs [0087]-[0089] teaches judging the similarity between two document images based on distribution as shown in figures 9 and 11, which represents the characters in figure 3 and 10, based on a preset distance similarity to determine if the similarity is low or high. The examiner notes in determining whether the similarity is high or low, a preset data/value or distance similarity is inherently included as a reference. In summary, Shi teaches all features in independent claim 1.
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, 8-9, 12-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi et al (“Shi” hereinafter, CN 104636708A, a copy of translation is attached herein).
As per claim 1, Shi discloses a method (abstract) comprising: comparing, by a server (a comparison system), a second model, representing a second probability distribution (figure 11) of a second plurality of features (a plurality of characters in figure 10) appearing in a second stream (figure 10, a string of characters), to a first model (figure 9), representing a first probability distribution of a first plurality of features (figures 3-6, a plurality of characters) appearing in a first stream (figure 3: a string of characters); determining, based on the comparing the second model to the first model, a difference between the second stream and the first stream; and cause, based on the difference being greater than or equal to a threshold, indication that the second stream differs from the first stream (paragraphs [0087]-[0089]: Step 24, judges the similarity between two document images, figure 3 and figure 10, based on distributions as shown in figures 9 and 11 in accordance within a preset distance similarity).
As per claim 2, Shi discloses building, based on the first plurality of features appearing in the first stream, the first model (as explained above, Shi in figures 3-9 teaches each character is the claimed “feature”, and the string of characters is the claimed “stream”).
As per claim 3, Shi discloses determining, based on first data in the first stream, a first numeric representation; determining, based on second data in the second stream, a second numeric representation; determining, based on identifying one or more features that appear in both the first numeric representation and the second numeric representation, the first plurality of features appearing in the first stream; and generating, based on how often each of the first plurality of features appear in both the first numeric representation and the second numeric representation, the first model (as shown in figures 3-9, the two-value distribution characteristic for each block the claimed “numeric representation”, and character pixel value is the claimed “feature”, and histogram in the distribution is the claimed “how often”).
As per claim 4, Shi teaches building, based on a second stream, the second model (see figures 10-11).
As per claim 8, Shi teaches the input source may be a person or machine feeder. Also see figures 3 and 10 for a plurality character images.
As per claim 9, see explanation in claim 1, the examiner notes, Shi’s system is a computer-like system, which inherently includes a processor and a memory.
As per claim 12, see explanation in claim 3.
As per claim 13, see explanation in claim 8.
As per claim 15, see explanation in claim 8.
As per claim 16, see paragraphs [0002] & [0010] for similarity distance judgment.
As per claim 17, see explanation in claim 1, the examiner notes Shi’s system is a computer-like system, which inherently includes a non-transitory computer readable medium.
As per claim 18, see explanation in claim 3.
As per claim 19, see explanation in claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 5-7, 10-11, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of common knowledge in the art.
As per claim 5, Shi teaches a document image comparison method and system to determine if two document images are similar (abstract). However, Shi does not explicitly teach creating a program application to notify the user when the two document images are different. Nonetheless, it is well-known in the art that such automated notification function exists, ie. messaging, email, and popup notification. At the time of the invention, one would be motivated to modify Shi to incorporate such notification function into Shi’s system to add a notification function to the user when two documents don’t match.
For claims 6-7, Shi’s system is to be implemented in the field of banking as evidenced in figure 3 “cashier check” and figure 10 “transfer check”/ “account-payee check”. As explained above, once the user is notified that two bank documents don’t match, it would cause the user to recognize the mistake and input a corrected document for banking, Although, Shi does not explicitly teach the system is an ATM machine, it is understood in the art that Shi’s system is capable of being implemented on an ATM machine to confirm the check documents to be deposited are the correct ones. One would be motivated to do so because it would extend the use of Shi’s system to additional fields, such as ATM.
As per claim 10, see explanation in claim 5.
As per claim 11, see explanation in claim 6.
As per claim 14, see explanation in claim 7.
As per claim 20, see explanation in claim 6.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,457. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
All limitations in claims 1-20 are encompassed in claims 1-24 of ‘457 patent.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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.
/TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights