Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Response to Applicants Arguments/Amendments
Applicants’ arguments/amendments filed on 3/2/3036 have been entered and made of record.
Applicants’ arguments filed on 3/3/2026 with respect to double patenting have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 13 was not rejected under double patenting. The examiner notes that there was a typo in the previous action and the subject matter of claim 13 was listed under claim 15 for the double patenting rejections however the subject matter itself was rejected under double patenting using the Blake reference. However, additional amendments containing subject matter not previously presented in any claimed required the examiner to substantially rewrite some of the double patenting rejections with new grounds of rejection while completely withdrawing. The examiner has applied new grounds of rejection below in response to the amendments:
Claim 1, 4, and 8-10, 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,582,862 in view of Borgia US 2009/0131692 and Blake 2005/0213805.
Claims 5, 6 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,582,862 in view of Burke US 8,290,237 Borgia US 2009/0131692 and Heit US 2011/0134248.
Claim 1, 4, and 8-10, 16 and 17 arerejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,208,393 in view of Borgia US 2009/0131692 and Blake 2005/0213805.
Claims 5, 6 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,208,393 in view of Burke US 8,290,237 Borgia US 2009/0131692 and Heit US 2011/0134248.
The remaining double patenting rejections have been withdrawn in light of the additional amendments to claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1, 16 and 17 applicant argues:
In other words, there is a technological trade-off between mobility and quality. Mobility is convenient, but frequently produces images that are not of sufficient quality to be used for mobile check deposits. Conversely, scanners can produce images of sufficient quality to be used for mobile check deposits, but lack the convenience of mobility.
Disclosed embodiments address this technological trade-off between mobility and image quality by "assuring the good quality of image[s]...taken by cameras on a mobile device, such as a mobile phone." Id. [0043]. This includes "ensur[ing] that the quality of images of checks are high enough to be processed by the Mobile Deposit application." Id. [0044].
In particular, as amended, the independent claims require "wherein the one or more processing parameters comprise a type of the mobile device" and "select one or more test parameters, based on the one or more processing parameters, including the type of the mobile device, to optimize the selected subset of IQA tests for the type of the mobile device." This combination of features enables the IQA tests to be optimized for the particular type of mobile device. In other words, embodiments of this feature address the variability of camera characteristics across different mobile devices.
In addition, the amended independent claims require "when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device." This enables the user to improve the image quality by adjusting one or more environmental factors. In other words, embodiments of this feature address the problems caused by environmental factors.
The combination of these two features, which solve the problems of variability across camera characteristics and the variability in environmental factors, ensures that the image quality is high, despite the fact that the image is captured by the camera of a mobile device. In other words, these features eliminate the trade-off between mobility and image quality that was previously inherent in computer technology.
For at least this reason, the claimed invention (i.e., the selection of test parameters based on the type of mobile device and the addressing of environmental factors) "is necessarily rooted in computer technology" (i.e., image capture) in order to overcome a problem (e.g., the trade-off between mobility and image quality) specifically arising in the realm of computer technology. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of Claims 1, 3-11, and 14-17 be withdrawn, and that these claims be passed to allowance.
The examiner strongly disagrees that the claim elements are rooted in technology. The claim elements of extracting a sub image, selecting tests, selecting parameters, configuring tests; applying tests, approving or rejection and determining a reason for the rejection when rejected, are all easily performed in the mind. The remaining elements amount to little more that performing an abstract idea using generic computer components and displaying the results on the display.
Applicant appears to be making the arguments that the claims improve a process for image capturing of checks for mobile deposit. The examiner notes that no checks are claimed. No mobile depositing is claimed. Further no capturing of images is claimed and no variability of captured images is solved by the claimed invention. The examiner further notes that depositing checks is not a technological environment as this was done by human activity prior to computer technology. Instead, the claim merely involves evaluating the quality of images selecting largely generic “tests” and configuring the them with selected generic “parameters” and determining acceptance and rejection. The examiner notes that evaluating the quality of images is not inherently a technological process as argued by applicant, humans can evaluate the quality of images using mental quality test to determine if the image is of sufficient quality. Neither is cashing checks a technological process.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: one or more software modules in claim 16. Which is interpreted to be the memory (see paragraph 22) and equivalents as well as the associated algorithm see paragraph 66, 67, 68
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1, 4, and 8-10, 16 and 17 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,582,862 in view of Borgia US 2009/0131692 and Blake 2005/0213805.
Re claim 1 Claim 8 (including claims from which it depends) of the patent discloses
A method comprising using at least one hardware processor to (a preprocessing module and a test execution module note these elements invoke 35 U.S.C 112 6th paragraph and read on a processor):
extract a document subimage from an image of a document captured by a camera of a mobile device; (see claim 1 “extract a document subimage from the mobile document image” ) captured by a camera of a mobile device (see claim 1 “receive a mobile document image captured using a camera of a mobile device and processing parameters”)
select a subset of image quality assurance (IQA) tests from a datastore of available IQA tests based on one or more processing parameters (see claim 1 “select one or more mobile image quality assurance tests to be performed on the mobile image based at least in part on the processing parameters” note that the preprocessing module and test execution module must have access to some store of the test in order to select and execute them); wherein the one or more processing parameters comprise a type of the mobile device (see claim 8 “wherein the processing parameters include information identifying a type of mobile device used to capture the mobile document image”)
select one or more test parameters based on the one or more processing parameters (see claim 8 “wherein the preprocessing module selects a set of test parameters to configure the mobile image quality assurance tests”); including the type of the mobile device to optimize the selected subset of IQA tests for the type of the mobile device (see claim 8 “wherein the processing parameters include information identifying a type of mobile device used to capture the mobile document image and wherein the preprocessing module is configured to select a set of test parameters for each mobile image quality assurance tests that optimize the tests for the type of mobile device.”)
configure the selected subset of IQA tests according to the selected one or more test parameters (see claim 8 “select a set of test parameters for each mobile image quality assurance tests that optimize the tests” and claim 6 “selects a set of test parameters to configure the mobile image quality assurance test” note that the tests are configured by the test parameters );
apply the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage to assess a quality of the image (see claim 1 “a test execution module configured to execute the one or more mobile image quality assurance tests on the document subimage to assess the quality of the mobile image”); and approve or reject the image based on the assessment of the quality of the image (see claim 1 “reject the mobile document image if the image fails at least one mobile image quality test”).
Claim 8 does not disclose using the at least one hardware processor to, when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device. Borgia discloses using the at least one hardware processor to, when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device (see paragraph 55 note that test results are displayed and an operator can rescan the image based on the results). One of ordinary skill ion the art could have easily modified claim 8 display the results of a test to a user and the results (user is informed of the results) would have been predictable. The motivation to combine is to correct images requiring correction see paragraph 55. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine claim 8 and Borgia to reach the aforementioned advantage before the claimed invention was made.
Claim 8 and Borgia do not expressly disclose wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test. Blake discloses wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test. (see paragraph 5 note that quality checks are to ensure compliance with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act). The motivation is to be ensure compliance with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (see paragraph 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine claim 8 and Blake and Borgia to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 4 , claim 8 further does not expressly disclose wherein each of the selected subset of IQA tests, when applied to the document subimage, outputs a score, and wherein selecting the one or more test parameters comprises selecting a threshold to be compared to the score, output by each of the selected subset of IQA tests, to determine whether or not the document subimage passes that IQA test. Blake further discloses wherein each of the selected subset of IQA tests, when applied to the document subimage, outputs a score, (see paragraph 40 IQA engine m produce image quality value, ), and wherein selecting the one or more test parameters comprises selecting a threshold to be compared to the score, output by each of the selected subset of IQA tests, to determine whether or not the document subimage passes that IQA test (see abstract and paragraph 43 note that image quality value produced by the IQA engine is compared to the threshold to determine if it passes, note one test is required to be configured ). The motivation to combine is Accordingly, a need exists in the art for a system and method for assessing image quality of electronic images based on the destination, intended use, characteristic, or other purpose of the images. Additionally, a need exists for further analyzing rejected images to determine whether those images are suitable for their intended use. (see paragraph 11). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine claim 8 and Blake and Borgia to reach the aforementioned advantage
Re claim 8, Claim 8 does not expressly disclose wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises one or more critical tests, and wherein approving or rejecting the image comprises rejecting the image if the document subimage fails any of the one or more critical tests. Burke discloses wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises one or more critical tests, and wherein approving or rejecting the image comprises rejecting the image if the document subimage fails any of the one or more critical tests.(see column 13 lines 10-25 note that an image may be rejected if a particular test i.e. ability to read an MICR line the image is rejected). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily have modified the system of claim 8 to also reject the image if the MICR is unreadable from the image, the results of this combination, the check is rejected if the MICR line is unreadable, would have been predictable. The motivation to combine is to reject a check if the MICR line is unreadable (i.e. ensure the readability of the MICR line) see column 13 lines 10-25. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to combine Borgia and Burke with claim 8 to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 9 Burke further discloses wherein the document is a check, and wherein the one or more critical tests comprise a magnetic ink character recognition (MICR) line test that assesses a quality of a MICR line in the document subimage. (see column 13 lines 10-25 note that an image may be rejected if a particular test i.e. ability to read an MICR line the image is rejected)
Re claim 10 claim 8 does not expressly disclose wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises one or more non-critical tests, and wherein the method comprises using the at least one hardware processor to flag the image for review by a user if the document subimage fails any of the one or more non-critical tests Burke further discloses wherein the plurality of IQA tests comprises one or more non-critical tests, (see column 13 lines 65- column 10 note that if an image skew is greater that a threshold the image is not automatically rejected but it is attempted to correct skew )
The examiner notes that the following language “wherein the method comprises using the at least one hardware processor to flag the image for review by a user if the document subimage fails any of the one or more non-critical tests” is presented only in the alternative (if a critical test is failed ), in an instance where a critical test is not failed this element need not be shown/performed for the method to read on the claim. As such the combination of Burke, and claim 8 read on the claim in the instance of a critical test not being failed.
The motivation to combine is to reject a check if the MICR line is unreadable (i.e. ensure the readability of the MICR line ) see column 13 lines 10-25 and attempt to correct the image (see column 14 line 10-15 and ) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to combine Burke with claim 8 and Borgia to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 16 Claim 8 ( including claims from which it depends) of the patent discloses
A method comprising using at least one hardware processor to (a preprocessing module and a test execution module note these elements invoke 35 U.S.C 112 6th paragraph and read on a processor):
extract a document subimage from an image of a document captured by a camera of a mobile device; (see claim 1 “extract a document subimage from the mobile document image” ) captured by a camera of a mobile device (see claim 1 “receive a mobile document image captured using a camera of a mobile device and processing parameters”)
select a subset of image quality assurance (IQA) tests from a datastore of available IQA tests based on one or more processing parameters (see claim 1 “select one or more mobile image quality assurance tests to be performed on the mobile image based at least in part on the processing parameters” note that the preprocessing module and test execution module must have access to some store of the test in order to select and execute them); wherein the one or more processing parameters comprise a type of the mobile device (see claim 8 “wherein the processing parameters include information identifying a type of mobile device used to capture the mobile document image”)
select one or more test parameters based on the one or more processing parameters (see claim 8 “wherein the preprocessing module selects a set of test parameters to configure the mobile image quality assurance tests”); including the type of the mobile device to optimize the selected subset of IQA tests for the type of the mobile device (see claim 8 “wherein the processing parameters include information identifying a type of mobile device used to capture the mobile document image and wherein the preprocessing module is configured to select a set of test parameters for each mobile image quality assurance tests that optimize the tests for the type of mobile device.”)
configure the selected subset of IQA tests according to the selected one or more test parameters (see claim 8 “select a set of test parameters for each mobile image quality assurance tests that optimize the tests” and claim 6 “selects a set of test parameters to configure the mobile image quality assurance test” note that the tests are configured by the test parameters );
apply the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage to assess a quality of the image (see claim 1 “a test execution module configured to execute the one or more mobile image quality assurance tests on the document subimage to assess the quality of the mobile image”); and approve or reject the image based on the assessment of the quality of the image (see claim 1 “reject the mobile document image if the image fails at least one mobile image quality test”).
Claim 8 does not expressly disclose wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test. Blake discloses wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test. (see paragraph 5 note that quality checks are to ensure compliance with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act). The motivation is to be ensure compliance with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (see paragraph 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine claim 8 and Blake and to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim 8 further does not expressly disclose A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and one or more software modules that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor. Blake further discloses A system comprising: at least one hardware processor (see Blake paragraph 67 ; and one or more software modules that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (see paragraph 67 ). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily used the system of Blake to implement the function of claim 8 and the results would be predictable i.e .the method of claim 8 implemented using a processor and memory. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine claim 8 and Blake.
Claim 8 and Blake do not disclose, when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device. Borgia discloses using the at least one hardware processor to, when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device (see paragraph 55 note that test results are displayed and an operator can rescan the image based on the results). One of ordinary skill ion the art could have easily modified claim 8 display the results of a test to a user and the results (user is informed of the results) would have been predictable. The motivation to combine is to correct images requiring correction see paragraph 55. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine claim 8 Blake and Borgia to reach the aforementioned advantage before the claimed invention was made.
Re claim 17 Claim 8 ( including claims from which it depends) of the patent discloses
A method comprising using at least one hardware processor to (a preprocessing module and a test execution module note these elements invoke 35 U.S.C 112 6th paragraph and read on a processor):
extract a document subimage from an image of a document captured by a camera of a mobile device; (see claim 1 “extract a document subimage from the mobile document image” ) captured by a camera of a mobile device (see claim 1 “receive a mobile document image captured using a camera of a mobile device and processing parameters”)
select a subset of image quality assurance (IQA) tests from a datastore of available IQA tests based on one or more processing parameters (see claim 1 “select one or more mobile image quality assurance tests to be performed on the mobile image based at least in part on the processing parameters” note that the preprocessing module and test execution module must have access to stored information indicating the available tests in order to select and execute them);
select one or more test parameters based on the one or more processing parameters (see claim 8 wherein the processing parameters include information identifying a type of mobile device used to capture the mobile document image and wherein the preprocessing module is configured to select a set of test parameters for each mobile image quality assurance tests that optimize the tests for the type of mobile device”);
configure the selected subset of IQA tests according to the selected one or more test parameters (see claim 8 “select a set of test parameters for the mobile image quality assurance tests that optimize the tests” and claim 6 “selects a set of test parameters to configure the mobile image quality assurance test” note that the tests are configured by the est parameters );
apply the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage to assess a quality of the image (see claim 1 “a test execution module configured to execute the one or more mobile image quality assurance tests on the document subimage to assess the quality of the mobile image” ); and approve or reject the image based on the assessment of the quality of the image (see claim 1 “reject the mobile document image if the image fails at least one mobile image quality test” ).
Claim 8 does not expressly disclose wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test. Blake discloses wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test. (see paragraph 5 note that quality checks are to ensure compliance with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act). The motivation is to be ensure compliance with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (see paragraph 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine claim 8 and Blake and to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim 8 does not expressly disclose A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform, the method. Bake discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method (see paragraph 67). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily used the system of Blake to implement the function of claim 8 and the results would be predictable i.e. the method of claim 8 implemented using a computer readable medium. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine claim 8 and Blake.
Claim 8 and Blake does not disclose, when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device. Borgia discloses using the at least one hardware processor to, when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device (see paragraph 55 note that test results are displayed and an operator can rescan the image based on the results). One of ordinary skill ion the art could have easily modified claim 8 display the results of a test to a user and the results (user is informed of the results) would have been predictable. The motivation to combine is to correct images requiring correction see paragraph 55. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine claim 8 Blake and Borgia to reach the aforementioned advantage before the claimed invention was made.
Claims 5, 6 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,582,862 in view of Burke US 8,290,237 Borgia US 2009/0131692 and Heit US 2011/0134248.
Re claim 5 claim 8 Borgia and Burke does not expressly disclose wherein applying the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage comprises pre-processing the document subimage to produce at least one document snippet that is used by one or more of the selected subset of IQA tests.
Heit discloses wherein applying the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage comprises pre-processing the document subimage to produce at least one document snippet that is used by one or more of the selected subset of IQA tests (see paragraph 136 “For example, the module 1616 can perform a series of image quality tests and image conversion/formatting operations, such as but not limited to: conversion of the image 20 (e.g. JPEG) into a gray scale image 20; conversion of the dots per square inch (DPI) of the image to a predefined DPI number compatible with the DMS 12 processing (e.g. conversion of a greater than 200 DPI to a 200 DPI image 20); correction for any image deficiencies present in the image 20 such as skew correction, plane correction, perspective correction, correction for actual physical dimensions of the document 18 in the image 20 (this can be accomplished for example by knowing that the MICR characters are a predefined standard size and therefore the physical dimensions of the document 18 in the image 20 are adjusted, increased or decreases, such that the MICR characters present in the image 20 assume their predefined size), image cropping to deleted extraneous objects in the image 20 (e.g. of the surface on which the document 18 was imaged, for example using known optical edge detection algorithms for the edges of the document 18 in the image 20); binarizing of the image (conversion of gray scale image into a black and white image);”).
The motivation to combine is “In terms of image capture by the mobile devices 9, digital cameras 17 are used to record the digital image/data, which can have image quality control issues such as bit not limited to; skew, planar distortion, image distortion, reflections, shadows, low contrast, size, etc. As further described below, the mobile device 9 and/or the DMS 12 have emulator module(s) 161 for use in converting the camera 17 captured image/data 20 into a desired scanner 16 format, as well as for correcting for one or more of the quality control issues.” (see paragraph 134). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily performed cropping to produce the sub image as well as other preprocessing operations described in Heit to corrected for quality control issues created by the camera in the mobile device. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the claimed invention was made to combine claim 8 Borgia and Burke with Heit to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 6 Heit further discloses wherein the pre-processing comprises converting the document subimage into a grayscale or bitonal image (see paragraph 136 binarizing the image).
Re claim 11 claim 8 Borgia and Burke does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one hardware processor is comprised in the mobile device. Heit discloses wherein the at least one hardware processor is comprised in the mobile device ((see paragraph 114 and 136 Further, it is recognized that the image testing and formatting/correction operations can be performed by the module 161 resident on the mobile device 9, the module 161 resident on the DMS 12, or a combination thereof.) see also paragraph 47 ).
The motivation to combine is to, allow remote capture using a mobile device (see paragraph 7 also see paragraph 2: “ In the prior art, fixed location deposit devices are used to record and submit scan data associated with imaged documents to a central processing system. However, this arrangement can have some disadvantages, since fixed location deposit devices are not flexible for today's mobile workforce.”. One of ordinary skill in the art could have performed the processing of claim 8 using the mobile devices as described in the teaching of Heit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to combine claim 8 Borgia and Burke and Heit to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim 1, 4, and 8-10, 16 and 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,208,393 in view of Borgia US 2009/0131692 and Blake 2005/0213805.
Re claim 1 Claim 6, (including claim 1 from which it depends) discloses
A method comprising using at least one hardware processor to(see claims 1 a preprocessing module and a test execution module note these elements invoke 35 U.S.C 112 6th paragraph):
extract a document subimage from an image of a document (see claim 1 “extract a document subimage from the mobile document image”) captured by a camera of a mobile device (see claim 1 “receive a mobile document image captured using a camera of a mobile device and processing parameters”);
select a subset of image quality assurance (IQA) tests from a datastore of available IQA tests based on one or more processing parameters; wherein the one or more processing parameters comprise a type of the mobile device (see claim 1 “select one or more mobile image quality assurance tests to be performed on the mobile image based at least in part on the processing parameters,” and “receive processing parameters from the mobile device for configuring the system for testing the mobile document image, wherein the processing parameters include information identifying a type of mobile device used to capture the mobile document image” note that the preprocessing module and test execution module must have access to stored programing indicating the tests in order to select and execute them)
select one or more test parameters based on the one or more processing parameters; including the type of the mobile device, to optimize the selected subset of IQA tests for the type of the mobile device ( see claim 6 “wherein the preprocessing module is configured to select a set of test parameters for each mobile image quality assurance test that optimizes the test for the identified type of mobile device”; note that test parameter are selected to optimize the tests )configure the selected subset of IQA tests according to the selected one or more test parameters ( see claim 8 “optimize the tests for the type of mobile device” note that optimization is configuring the test)
apply the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage to assess a quality of the image; (see claim 1 “execute the one or more mobile image quality assurance tests on the document subimage to assess the quality of the mobile image”)
and approve or reject the image based on the assessment of the quality of the image. (see claim 1 “determine whether the mobile document image passes or fails at least one mobile image quality test.”)
Claim 6 does not disclose using the at least one hardware processor to, when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device. Borgia discloses using the at least one hardware processor to, when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device (see paragraph 55 note that test results are displayed and an operator can rescan the image based on the results). One of ordinary skill ion the art could have easily modified claim 6display the results of a test to a user and the results (user is informed of the results) would have been predictable. The motivation to combine is to correct images requiring correction see paragraph 55. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine claim 8 and Borgia to reach the aforementioned advantage before the claimed invention was made.
Claim 6 and Borgia do not expressly disclose wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test. Blake discloses wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test. (see paragraph 5 note that quality checks are to ensure compliance with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act). The motivation is to be ensure compliance with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (see paragraph 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine claim 6 and Blake and Borgia to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 4, claim 6 Borgia and Blake disclose all of the features of claim 1. Claim 6 Borgia and Blake does not expressly disclose wherein each of the selected subset of IQA tests, when applied to the document subimage, outputs a score, and wherein selecting the one or more test parameters comprises selecting a threshold to be compared to the score, output by each of the selected subset of IQA tests, to determine whether or not the document subimage passes that IQA test. Blake discloses wherein each of the selected subset of IQA tests, when applied to the document subimage, outputs a score, (see paragraph 40 IQA engine m produce image quality value, ), and wherein selecting the one or more test parameters comprises selecting a threshold to be compared to the score, output by each of the selected subset of IQA tests, to determine whether or not the document subimage passes that IQA test (see abstract and paragraph 43 note that image quality value produced by the IQA engine is compared to the threshold to determine if it passes,). The motivation to combine is Accordingly, a need exists in the art for a system and method for assessing image quality of electronic images based on the destination, intended use, characteristic, or other purpose of the images. Additionally, a need exists for further analyzing rejected images to determine whether those images are suitable for their intended use. (see paragraph 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine claim 6 and Blake to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 8, Claim 6 does not expressly disclose wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises one or more critical tests, and wherein approving or rejecting the image comprises rejecting the image if the document subimage fails any of the one or more critical tests. Burke discloses wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises one or more critical tests, and wherein approving or rejecting the image comprises rejecting the image if the document subimage fails any of the one or more critical tests (see column 13 lines 10-25 note that an image may be rejected if a particular test i.e. ability to read an MICR line the image is rejected). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily have modified the system of claim 6 to also reject the image if the MICR is unreadable from the image, the results of this combination, the check is rejected if the MICR line is unreadable, would have been predictable. The motivation to combine is to reject a check if the MICR line is unreadable (i.e. ensure the readability of the MICR line) see column 13 lines 10-25. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to combine Borgia and Burke with claim 8 to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 9 Burke further discloses wherein the document is a check, and wherein the one or more critical tests comprise a magnetic ink character recognition (MICR) line test that assesses a quality of a MICR line in the document subimage. (See column 13 lines 10-25 note that an image may be rejected if a particular test i.e. ability to read an MICR line the image is rejected)
Re claim 10 claim 6 further does not expressly disclose wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises one or more non-critical tests, and wherein the method comprises using the at least one hardware processor to flag the image for review by a user if the document subimage fails any of the one or more non-critical tests Burke further discloses wherein the plurality of IQA tests comprises one or more non-critical tests, (see column 13 lines 65- column 10 note that if an image skew is greater that a threshold the image is not automatically rejected but it is attempted to correct skew )
The examiner notes that the following language “wherein the method comprises using the at least one hardware processor to flag the image for review by a user if the document subimage fails any of the one or more non-critical tests” is presented only in the alternative (if a critical test is failed), in an instance where a critical test is not failed this element need not be shown/performed for the method to read on the claim. As such the combination of Burke, and claim 6 reads on the claim in the instance of a critical test not being failed.
The motivation to combine is to reject a check if the MICR line is unreadable (i.e. ensure the readability of the MICR line) see column 13 lines 10-25 and attempt to correct the image (see column 14 line 10-15) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to combine Burke with claim 6 and Borgia to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 16 Claim 6, (including claim 1 from which it depends) discloses
A method comprising using at least one hardware processor to(see claims 1 a preprocessing module and a test execution module note these elements invoke 35 U.S.C 112 6th paragraph):
extract a document subimage from an image of a document (see claim 1 “extract a document subimage from the mobile document image”) captured by a camera of a mobile device (see claim 1 “receive a mobile document image captured using a camera of a mobile device and processing parameters”);
select a subset of image quality assurance (IQA) tests from a datastore of available IQA tests based on one or more processing parameters; wherein the one or more processing parameters comprise a type of the mobile device (see claim 1 “select one or more mobile image quality assurance tests to be performed on the mobile image based at least in part on the processing parameters,” and “receive processing parameters from the mobile device for configuring the system for testing the mobile document image, wherein the processing parameters include information identifying a type of mobile device used to capture the mobile document image” note that the preprocessing module and test execution module must have access to stored programing indicating the tests in order to select and execute them)
select one or more test parameters based on the one or more processing parameters; including the type of the mobile device, to optimize the selected subset of IQA tests for the type of the mobile device ( see claim 6 “wherein the preprocessing module is configured to select a set of test parameters for each mobile image quality assurance test that optimizes the test for the identified type of mobile device”; note that test parameter are selected to optimize the tests )configure the selected subset of IQA tests according to the selected one or more test parameters ( see claim 8 “optimize the tests for the type of mobile device” note that optimization is configuring the test)
apply the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage to assess a quality of the image; (see claim 1 “execute the one or more mobile image quality assurance tests on the document subimage to assess the quality of the mobile image”)
and approve or reject the image based on the assessment of the quality of the image. (see claim 1 “determine whether the mobile document image passes or fails at least one mobile image quality test.”)
Claim 6 does not expressly disclose wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test. Blake discloses wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test. (see paragraph 5 note that quality checks are to ensure compliance with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act). The motivation is to be ensure compliance with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (see paragraph 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine claim 8 and Blake and to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim 6 further does not expressly disclose A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and one or more software modules that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor. Blake further discloses A system comprising: at least one hardware processor (see Blake paragraph 67 ; and one or more software modules that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (see paragraph 67 ). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily used the system of Blake to implement the function of claim 8 and the results would be predictable i.e. the method of claim 6 implemented using a processor and memory. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine claim 6 and Blake.
Claim 6 and Blake do not disclose, when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device. Borgia discloses using the at least one hardware processor to, when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device (see paragraph 55 note that test results are displayed and an operator can rescan the image based on the results). One of ordinary skill ion the art could have easily modified claim 6 display the results of a test to a user and the results (user is informed of the results) would have been predictable. The motivation to combine is to correct images requiring correction see paragraph 55. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine claim 6 Blake and Borgia to reach the aforementioned advantage before the claimed invention was made.
Re claim 17 Claim 6, (including claim 1 from which it depends) discloses
A method comprising using at least one hardware processor to(see claims 1 a preprocessing module and a test execution module note these elements invoke 35 U.S.C 112 6th paragraph):
extract a document subimage from an image of a document (see claim 1 “extract a document subimage from the mobile document image”) captured by a camera of a mobile device (see claim 1 “receive a mobile document image captured using a camera of a mobile device and processing parameters”);
select a subset of image quality assurance (IQA) tests from a datastore of available IQA tests based on one or more processing parameters; wherein the one or more processing parameters comprise a type of the mobile device (see claim 1 “select one or more mobile image quality assurance tests to be performed on the mobile image based at least in part on the processing parameters,” and “receive processing parameters from the mobile device for configuring the system for testing the mobile document image, wherein the processing parameters include information identifying a type of mobile device used to capture the mobile document image” note that the preprocessing module and test execution module must have access to stored programing indicating the tests in order to select and execute them)
select one or more test parameters based on the one or more processing parameters; including the type of the mobile device, to optimize the selected subset of IQA tests for the type of the mobile device ( see claim 6 “wherein the preprocessing module is configured to select a set of test parameters for each mobile image quality assurance test that optimizes the test for the identified type of mobile device”; note that test parameter are selected to optimize the tests )configure the selected subset of IQA tests according to the selected one or more test parameters ( see claim 8 “optimize the tests for the type of mobile device” note that optimization is configuring the test)
apply the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage to assess a quality of the image; (see claim 1 “execute the one or more mobile image quality assurance tests on the document subimage to assess the quality of the mobile image”)
and approve or reject the image based on the assessment of the quality of the image. (see claim 1 “determine whether the mobile document image passes or fails at least one mobile image quality test.”)
Claim 6 does not expressly disclose wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test. Blake discloses wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test. (see paragraph 5 note that quality checks are to ensure compliance with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act). The motivation is to be ensure compliance with the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (see paragraph 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine claim 8 and Blake and to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim 6 does not expressly disclose A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform, the method. Bake discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method (see paragraph 67). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily used the system of Blake to implement the function of claim 6 and the results would be predictable i.e. the method of claim 6 implemented using a computer readable medium. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine claim 6 and Blake.
Claim 6 and Blake does not disclose, when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device. Borgia discloses using the at least one hardware processor to, when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device (see paragraph 55 note that test results are displayed and an operator can rescan the image based on the results). One of ordinary skill ion the art could have easily modified claim 6 display the results of a test to a user and the results (user is informed of the results) would have been predictable. The motivation to combine is to correct images requiring correction see paragraph 55. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine claim 6 Blake and Borgia to reach the aforementioned advantage before the claimed invention was made.
Claims 5, 6 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,208,393 in view of Burke US 8,290,237 Borgia US 2009/0131692 and Heit US 2011/0134248.
Re claim 5 claim 6 Borgia and Burke does not expressly disclose wherein applying the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage comprises pre-processing the document subimage to produce at least one document snippet that is used by one or more of the selected subset of IQA tests.
Heit discloses wherein applying the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage comprises pre-processing the document subimage to produce at least one document snippet that is used by one or more of the selected subset of IQA tests (see paragraph 136 “For example, the module 1616 can perform a series of image quality tests and image conversion/formatting operations, such as but not limited to: conversion of the image 20 (e.g. JPEG) into a gray scale image 20; conversion of the dots per square inch (DPI) of the image to a predefined DPI number compatible with the DMS 12 processing (e.g. conversion of a greater than 200 DPI to a 200 DPI image 20); correction for any image deficiencies present in the image 20 such as skew correction, plane correction, perspective correction, correction for actual physical dimensions of the document 18 in the image 20 (this can be accomplished for example by knowing that the MICR characters are a predefined standard size and therefore the physical dimensions of the document 18 in the image 20 are adjusted, increased or decreases, such that the MICR characters present in the image 20 assume their predefined size), image cropping to deleted extraneous objects in the image 20 (e.g. of the surface on which the document 18 was imaged, for example using known optical edge detection algorithms for the edges of the document 18 in the image 20); binarizing of the image (conversion of gray scale image into a black and white image);”).
The motivation to combine is “In terms of image capture by the mobile devices 9, digital cameras 17 are used to record the digital image/data, which can have image quality control issues such as bit not limited to; skew, planar distortion, image distortion, reflections, shadows, low contrast, size, etc. As further described below, the mobile device 9 and/or the DMS 12 have emulator module(s) 161 for use in converting the camera 17 captured image/data 20 into a desired scanner 16 format, as well as for correcting for one or more of the quality control issues.” (see paragraph 134). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily performed cropping to produce the sub image as well as other preprocessing operations described in Heit to corrected for quality control issues created by the camera in the mobile device. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the claimed invention was made to combine claim 6 Borgia and Burke with Heit to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 6 Heit further discloses wherein the pre-processing comprises converting the document subimage into a grayscale or bitonal image (see paragraph 136 binarizing the image).
Re claim 11 claim 6 Borgia and Burke does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one hardware processor is comprised in the mobile device. Heit discloses wherein the at least one hardware processor is comprised in the mobile device ((see paragraph 114 and 136 Further, it is recognized that the image testing and formatting/correction operations can be performed by the module 161 resident on the mobile device 9, the module 161 resident on the DMS 12, or a combination thereof.) see also paragraph 47 ).
The motivation to combine is to, allow remote capture using a mobile device (see paragraph 7 also see paragraph 2: “In the prior art, fixed location deposit devices are used to record and submit scan data associated with imaged documents to a central processing system. However, this arrangement can have some disadvantages, since fixed location deposit devices are not flexible for today's mobile workforce.”. One of ordinary skill in the art could have performed the processing of claim 6 using the mobile devices as described in the teaching of Heit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to combine claim 6 Borgia and Burke and Heit to reach the aforementioned advantage.
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 1, 3-11, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re claim 1
The limitation of extract a document subimage from an image of a document captured by a camera of a mobile device; , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, extract a subimage in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a region of the image corresponding to a sub image.
The limitation of select a subset of image quality assurance (IQA) tests from a datastore of available IQA tests based on one or more processing parameters, wherein the one or more processing parameters comprise a type of the mobile device, and wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test; as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, select in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the selection of a check 21 test based on the type of device.
The limitation of select one or more test parameters based on the one or more processing parameters, including the type of the mobile device, to optimize the selected subset of IQA tests for the type of the mobile device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, select in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally selecting the test parameters to optimize for the type of device.
The limitation of configure the selected subset of IQA tests according to the selected one or more test parameters; , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, configure in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally configuring a mental test.
The limitation of apply the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage to assess a quality of the image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, applying the tests in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally executing mental tests on the document image.
The limitation of approve or reject the image based on the assessment of the quality of the image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, approve or rejection in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally approving or rejecting.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The examiner notes that the claim element “when the image is rejected, display a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a display of the mobile device” is only performed in certain circumstance, the examiner notes that this would not contribute to integration into an abstract idea or significantly more in circumstances when the image is not rejected.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a hardware processor to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 3 The limitation “wherein the one or more processing parameters comprise a type of mobile application on the mobile device that will be used to process contents of the document” merely further defines the mental steps in claim 1 by defining the type of parameters used in the mental steps and thus recites a similar abstract idea to that of claim 1.
The analysis with respect significantly more and integration into an abstract idea for this claim is not significantly different than from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 4 The limitation of wherein each of the selected subset of IQA tests, when applied to the document subimage, outputs a score, and wherein selecting the one or more test parameters comprises selecting a threshold to be compared to the score, output by each of the selected subset of IQA tests, to determine whether or not the document subimage passes that IQA test , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, outputting a score selecting a threshold a in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally outputting the score and selecting the threshold.
The analysis with respect significantly more and integration into an abstract idea for this claim is not significantly different than from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 5 The limitation of applying the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage comprises pre-processing the document subimage to produce at least one document snippet that is used by one or more of the selected subset of IQA tests, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, preprocessing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing preprocessing (such as extracting data or determining a region or interest).
The analysis with respect significantly more and integration into an abstract idea for this claim is not significantly different than from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 6 Claim 6 contains the same abstract idea as claim 5.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using a hardware processor to perform the steps converting the image into a bitonal or greyscale image. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Converting an image into a bitonal image is a notoriously well-known process (see for example Nakamura (US 2008/0240573 A1) note binarization is well known). A well know preprocessing step performed in a wide variety of applications does not meaningfully limit the claim to and particular application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Converting an image into a bitonal image is a notoriously well-known process. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component combined with a well-known preprocessing step of converting to a bitonal image cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 7 The limitation of wherein the pre-processing is different for a first IQA test in the selected subset of IQA tests than for a second IQA test in the selected subset of IQA tests, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, preprocessing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing preprocessing (such as extracting data or determining a region or interest).
The analysis with respect significantly more and integration into an abstract idea for this claim is not significantly different than from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 8 The limitation of wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises one or more critical tests, and wherein approving or rejecting the image comprises rejecting the image if the document subimage fails any of the one or more critical tests. , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example performing the tests and approving or rejection in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the tests and mentally accepting or rejecting.
The analysis with respect significantly more and integration into an abstract idea for this claim is not significantly different than from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 9 The limitation of wherein the document is a check, and wherein the one or more critical tests comprise a magnetic ink character recognition (MICR) line test that assesses a quality of a MICR line in the document subimage , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, assessing the quality of the MICR line in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally assessing the quality of the MICR line.
The analysis with respect significantly more and integration into an abstract idea for this claim is not significantly different than from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 10 The limitation of wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises one or more non-critical tests, and wherein the method comprises: flag the image for review by a user if the document subimage fails any of the one or more non-critical tests, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, flagging in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally flagging the document if its fails the test.
The analysis with respect significantly more and integration into an abstract idea for this claim is not significantly different than from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 11 claim 11 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a hardware processor as a part of a mobile device to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 14 The limitation of when the image has been rejected a predetermined number of times, reconfigure at least one IQA test in the selected subset of IQA tests, and reapply the at least one IQA test to the document subimage to assess the quality of the image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, reconfigure and reapply in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing a mentally reconfiguring and reapplying the test.
The analysis with respect significantly more and integration into an abstract idea for this claim is not significantly different than from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 15 The limitation of wherein the at least one IQA test, when applied to the document subimage, outputs a score, and wherein reconfiguring the at least one IQA test comprises adjusting a threshold that the score is required to satisfy in order for the image to pass the at least one IQA test, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, reconfigure and reapply in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing a mentally reconfiguring and reapplying the test.
The analysis with respect significantly more and integration into an abstract idea for this claim is not significantly different than from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 16
The limitation of extract a document subimage from an image of a document captured by a camera of a mobile device; , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, extract a subimage in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a region of the image corresponding to a sub image.
The limitation of select a subset of image quality assurance (IQA) tests from a datastore of available IQA tests based on one or more processing parameters, wherein the one or more processing parameters comprise a type of the mobile device, and wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test; as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, select in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the selection of a check 21 test based on the type of device.
The limitation of select one or more test parameters based on the one or more processing parameters, including the type of the mobile device, to optimize the selected subset of IQA tests for the type of the mobile device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, select in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally selecting the test parameters to optimize for the type of device.
The limitation of configure the selected subset of IQA tests according to the selected one or more test parameters; , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, configure in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally configuring a mental test.
The limitation of apply the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage to assess a quality of the image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, applying the tests in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally executing mental tests on the document image.
The limitation of approve or reject the image based on the assessment of the quality of the image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, approve or rejection in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally approving or rejecting.
The limitation of when the image is rejected determine a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, approve or rejection in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally approving or rejecting.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and one or more software modules that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor perform steps and when the image is rejected, display a message display of the mobile device. The processor and software modules in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic software modules performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Displaying a message on a device is mere insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and software modules to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Displaying a message on a display of a mobile device is mere insignificant extra solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components combined with insignificant extra solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 17
The limitation of extract a document subimage from an image of a document captured by a camera of a mobile device; , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, extract a subimage in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a region of the image corresponding to a sub image.
The limitation of select a subset of image quality assurance (IQA) tests from a datastore of available IQA tests based on one or more processing parameters, wherein the one or more processing parameters comprise a type of the mobile device, and wherein the selected subset of IQA tests comprises a Check 21 test; as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, select in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the selection of a check 21 test based on the type of device.
The limitation of select one or more test parameters based on the one or more processing parameters, including the type of the mobile device, to optimize the selected subset of IQA tests for the type of the mobile device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, select in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally selecting the test parameters to optimize for the type of device.
The limitation of configure the selected subset of IQA tests according to the selected one or more test parameters; , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, configure in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally configuring a mental test.
The limitation of apply the selected subset of IQA tests to the document subimage to assess a quality of the image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, applying the tests in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally executing mental tests on the document image.
The limitation of approve or reject the image based on the assessment of the quality of the image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, approve or rejection in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally approving or rejecting.
The limitation of when the image is rejected determine a message indicating a reason for the rejection on a, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, approve or rejection in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally approving or rejecting.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to. The processor and computer readable medium in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer readable medium performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Displaying a message on a device is mere insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and computer readable medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Displaying a message on a display of a mobile device is mere insignificant extra solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components combined with insignificant extra solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 SEAN T MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1237. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/SEAN T MOTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights