Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received December 19, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
As to the rejection of Claims 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is thereby withdrawn.
As to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the instant claims do not merely recite ‘a mental process,’ but instead recite several detailed steps and features that could not be performed by a human. Examiner argues that the claims do recite a mental process (in bold below). The limitations Applicant points to are merely “apply it” where a computer is automating what people would do or extra solution activity. The claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea). The rejection is thereby maintained.
As to the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant's arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The claims are rejected as amended as detailed below.
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 10,692,136. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the claims at issue are contained in claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 10,692,136.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of co-pending Application No. 16/823,664 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the claims at issue are contained in claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 16/823,664.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Patent #10,692,136
Co-pending Application # 16/823,664
Current Application #18/343,906
Claim 1
A computer-implemented method of automatically opening an account at an institution, the method comprising:
receiving, at a network communications interface of a server and from a mobile device of a user not having a preexisting account with the institution via an established cryptographic tunnel, user identification information of the user, the user identification information being captured by the mobile device;
identifying, with a programmed processor of the server, an indication that the user changed a portion of the received user identification information via the mobile device;
in response to identifying the indication, the programmed processor of the server flagging the received user identification information for review;
receiving, at the network communications interface of the server and from the mobile device via the established cryptographic tunnel, primary document information of the user from the network communications interface of the mobile device via the established cryptographic tunnel, the primary document information being converted from an image of a primary document captured by an image capturing mechanism of the mobile device;
validating, by the programmed processor of the server, the received user identification information against the received primary document information in real-time; and
automatically opening, with the programmed processor of the server, an account for the user in response to successfully validating the received user identification information against the received primary document information.
Claim 1
A method, comprising:
establishing, a cryptographic tunnel between a mobile device of a user not having a preexisting account with an institution and one or more servers of the institution;
receiving, from the mobile device via the established cryptographic tunnel, user identification information of the user captured by the mobile device;
identifying, with the one or more servers, an indication that the user changed a portion of the user identification information via the mobile device;
in response to identifying the indication, flagging the user identification information for review;
receiving, at the one or more servers from the mobile device via the established cryptographic tunnel, primary document information of the user, the primary document information obtained from a converted image;
validating, with the one or more servers, the user identification information against the primary document information in real-time; and
opening, with the one or more servers, an account for the user in response to successfully validating the user identification information against the primary document information.
Claim 1
A method, comprising:
establishing, a secure communication link between a mobile device of a user not having a preexisting account with an institution and one or more servers of the institution;
receiving, from the mobile device via the established secure communication link and a first graphical user interface, user identification information;
generating a second graphical user interface for the user to verify an image of a primary document, the image comprising a machine-readable code;
receiving, at the one or more servers from the mobile device via the established secure communication link, primary document information of the user, the primary document information obtained by converting the image of the primary document;
validating, with the one or more servers, the user identification information using the primary document information; and
opening, with the one or more servers, an account for the user in response to successfully validating the user identification information with the primary document information.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the user identification information is selected from the group consisting of voice information, image information, biometric information, textual information, and converted information.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the user identification information is selected from the group consisting of voice information, image information, biometric information, textual information, and converted information.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the user identification information is selected from the group consisting of voice information, image information, biometric information, textual information, and converted information.
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 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claims recite a method, system, and device. For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed.
(Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents a mental process, as a method of validating identification information when opening an account. Validating user identification information in order to open an account is akin to a mental process.
Claim 1
A method, comprising:
establishing, a secure communication link between a mobile device of a user not having a preexisting account with an institution and one or more servers of the institution;
receiving, from the mobile device via the established secure communication link and a first graphical user interface, user identification information;
generating a second graphical user interface for the user to verify an image of a primary document, the image comprising a machine-readable code;
receiving, at the one or more servers from the mobile device via the established secure communication link, primary document information of the user, the primary document information obtained by converting the image of the primary document;
validating, with the one or more servers, the user identification information using the primary document information; and
opening, with the one or more servers, an account for the user in response to successfully validating the user identification information with the primary document information.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are considered as follows:
“establishing, a secure communication link between a mobile device of a user not having a preexisting account with an institution and one or more servers of the institution” This is an extra solution activity, akin to data gathering.
“receiving, from the mobile device via the established secure communication link and a first graphical user interface, user identification information;” This is also an extra solution activity, akin to data gathering.
“generating a second graphical user interface for the user to verify an image of a primary document, the image comprising a machine-readable code” This is merely “apply it” this sever is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“receiving, at the one or more servers from the mobile device, primary document information of the user, the primary document information obtained from a converted image;” This is also an extra solution activity, akin to data gathering.
“opening, with the one or more servers, an account for the user in response to successfully validating the user identification information with the primary document information”. This is merely “apply it” this sever is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
(Step 2B) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of validating user identification information in order to open an account, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20, recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Nepomniachtchi et al. (Publication No.: US 2011/0091092 A1) in view of Love et al. (Patent No.: US 8,172,132 B2).
As to Claim 1, Nepomniachtchi teaches a method, comprising:
establishing, a secure communication link between a mobile device of a user; (see at least ¶[0008] – “Systems and method are provided for capturing and processing images of remittance coupons using a mobile device, such as a mobile phone. Embodiments of the systems and methods described herein provide image optimization and enhancement such that data can be extracted from the remittance coupon for processing by a remittance processing service. In some embodiments, an image of a check can also be captured to be processed as a payment associated with the remittance coupon. Some embodiments described herein involve a mobile communication device capturing an image of a document and transmitting the captured image to a server for image optimization and enhancement. Techniques for assessing the quality of images of documents captured using the mobile device are also provided. The tests can be selected based on the type of document that was imaged, the type of mobile application for which the image quality of the mobile image is being assessed, and/or other parameters such as the type of mobile device and/or the characteristics of the camera of the mobile device that was used to capture the image. In some embodiments, the image quality assurance techniques can be implemented on a remote server, such as a mobile phone carrier's server or a web server, and the mobile device routes the mobile image to be assessed and optional processing parameters to the remote server processing and the test results can be passed from the remote server to the mobile device.”);
receiving, from the mobile device via the established secure communication link and a first graphical user interface, user identification information (see ¶[0072] – “FIG. 1 is an image illustrating an example remittance coupon 1900 that can be imaged with the systems and methods described herein. The mobile image capture and processing systems and methods described herein can be used with a variety of documents, including financial documents such as personal checks, business checks, cashier's checks, certified checks, and warrants. By using an image of the remittance coupon 100, the remittance process can be automated and performed more efficiently. As would be appreciated by those of skill in the art, remittance coupons are not the only types of documents that might be processed using the system and methods described herein. For example, in some embodiments, a user can capture an image of a remittance coupon and an image of a check associated with a checking account from which the remittance payment will be funded.”);
generating a second graphical user interface for the user to verify an image of a primary document, the image comprising a machine-readable code;
receiving, at the one or more servers from the mobile device via the established secure communication link, primary document information of the user, the primary document information obtained by converting the image of the primary document (see at least ¶[0066] – “The embodiments described herein are directed towards automated document processing and systems and methods for document image processing using mobile devices. System and methods are provided for processing a remittance coupon captured using a mobile device. Generally, in some embodiments an original color image of a document is captured using a mobile device and then converted the color image to a bi-tonal image. More specifically, in some embodiments, a color image of a document taken by a mobile device is received and converted into a bi-tonal image of the document that is substantially equivalent in its resolution, size, and quality to document images produced by "standard" scanners.”).
Although Nepomniachtchi substantially teaches the method of claim 1, it does not explicitly teach a user not having a preexisting account with an institution and one or more servers of the institution; validating, with the one or more servers, the user identification information using the primary document information; and opening, with the one or more servers, an account for the user in response to successfully validating the user identification information with the primary document information. Love does teach a user not having a preexisting account with an institution and one or more servers of the institution (see Col. 2, lines 3-41 – this kind of identity validation is used in “opening a new account”); validating, with the one or more servers, the user identification information using the primary document information (see Col. 2, lines 6-11 – “the identification presented may be a driver's license, a state issued identification, a passport, or a military identification. Exemplary identification values obtained may include name, birth data, address, gender, hair color, height, eye color, and/or weight.”); and opening, with the one or more servers, an account for the user in response to successfully validating the user identification information with the primary document information (see Figure 5; and Col. 2, lines 3-41 – “In further embodiments, the method may comprise parsing, at the identity verification service, the encoded data to obtain the one or more identification values. The identification values may vary depending upon the type of identification presented. For instance, the identification presented may be a driver's license, a state issued identification, a passport, or a military identification. Exemplary identification values obtained may include name, birth data, address, gender, hair color, height, eye color, and/or weight. Other identification values may also be obtained. The identity verification service may also determine a criteria is satisfied indicating the identification may be fraudulent (e.g., the identification has been presented a predetermined number of times within a predetermined time period). The result transmitted by the identity verification service may include information that indicates the identification may be fraudulent. Other status information may also be transmitted by the identity verification service. (7) Additional requests included in the communication may also be transmitted to other transaction services. For example, the method may additionally comprise determining the communication includes an identity validation request to assess validity of the identification. The identity validation request may be routed to an identity validation service and a validation result may be received indicating an identification validity status assessed by the identity validation service. In one aspect, the identity validation service may assess the validity by comparing at least one of the identification values to a database including suspicious data values. If the identification value matches a suspicious data value, the identity verification service may transmit a validity status indicating a potential fraudulent identification. In another aspect, the identity validation service may assess the validity by matching one of the identification values to a first stored value and retrieving a second stored value associated with the first stored value. The second stored value and a second one of the identification values both have a first attribute type. If the second identification value does not match the second stored database value, the identity verification service may transmit a validity status indicating an alert.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the identification validating of Love with the account opening features of Nepomniachtchi as Love teaches that identification verification was a problem particularly with opening new accounts. The motivation to combine is to provide greater security in opening new accounts online.
As to Claim 2, Love teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user identification information is selected from the group consisting of voice information, image information, biometric information, textual information, and converted information (see at least Col. 5, lines 5-21 – “In some embodiments, identity verification service 118 may also be used to transmit a status indicating an outcome of the identity verification process. For example, the status may indicate whether the identification is expired or whether the encoded data format is invalid. In some embodiments, status information may indicate whether the identification may be falsified. In those embodiments, identity verification service may be communicatively coupled with a data store (e.g., a relational or other type of database, text file, internal software lists, or other type of data storage). The data store (not shown) may store information used by the identity verification service to assess whether an identity may be fraudulent. For example, the data store may store identifications which are known to be fraudulent. Other information may also be stored and used by identity verification service to verify identifications. In other embodiments, identity verification service 118 may not be communicatively coupled with a data store.”).
As to Claim 3, Nepomniachtchi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the user identification information further comprises receiving, at a network communications interface of a server, optical character recognition data converted from an image of a primary document captured the mobile device (see at least [0084] – “An image of a remittance coupon is captured using a camera or other optical device of the mobile device 340 (step 405). For example, a user of the mobile device 340 can click a button or otherwise activate a camera or other optical device of mobile device 340 to cause the camera or other optical device to capture an image of a remittance coupon. FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a mobile image of a remittance coupon that has been captured using a camera associated with a mobile device 340.”, and ¶[0122] – “Often, a standard optical character recognition font, the OCR-A font, is used for printing the characters comprising the code line. The OCR-A font is a fixed-width font where the characters are typically spaced 0.10 inches apart. Because the OCR-A font is a standardized fixed-width font, the image correction module can use this information to determining a scaling factor for the image of the remittance coupon. The scaling factor to be used can vary from image to image, because the scaling is dependent upon the position of the camera or other image capture device relative to the document being imaged and can also be dependent upon optical characteristics of the device used to capture the image of the document.”). The a remittance coupon can be personalized and include identification information for the source to allow for marketing data collection by a merchant.
As to Claim 4, Love teaches the method of claim 3, wherein: the secure communications link is a cryptographic tunnel, the primary document is a driver's license of the user, and the machine-readable code is a barcode (see at least Col. 2, lines 3-9).
Claim 9 is the system for performing the method of Claim 1 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Claim 11 is the system for performing the method of Claim 3 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 3.
Claim 13 is the system for performing the method of Claim 3 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 3.
As to Claim 14, Nepomniachtchi teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the primary document is a member selected from a personal check, a debit card, a credit card, a document containing a social security number of the user, a document containing a Magnetic Ink Character Recognition line and combinations thereof (see at least ¶[0072] – “FIG. 1 is an image illustrating an example remittance coupon 1900 that can be imaged with the systems and methods described herein. The mobile image capture and processing systems and methods described herein can be used with a variety of documents, including financial documents such as personal checks, business checks, cashier's checks, certified checks, and warrants. By using an image of the remittance coupon 100, the remittance process can be automated and performed more efficiently. As would be appreciated by those of skill in the art, remittance coupons are not the only types of documents that might be processed using the system and methods described herein. For example, in some embodiments, a user can capture an image of a remittance coupon and an image of a check associated with a checking account from which the remittance payment will be funded.”).
As to Claim 15, Nepomniachtchi teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the primary document information includes an amount to be deposited in the automatically opened account by a programmed processor of the one or more servers (¶[0231] – “The mobile image 2105 captured by a mobile device is received (step 2305). In an embodiment, image of the front and back sides of the check can be provided. The mobile image 2105 can also be accompanied by one or more processing parameters 2107. Check data can also be optionally received (step 2307). The check data can be optionally provided by the user at the time that the check is captured. This check data can include various information from the check, such as the check amount, check number, routing information from the face of the check, or other information, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, a mobile deposition application requests this information from a user of the mobile device, allows the user to capture an image of a check or to select an image of a check that has already been captured, or both, and the mobile deposit information provides the check image, the check data, and other processing parameters to the MDIPE 2100.”).
Claim 16 is the device for performing the method of Claim 1 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Claim 18 is the device for performing the method of Claim 2 and is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 2.
As to Claim 20, Nepomniachtchi teaches receive, at the network communications interface of the mobile device, information for a payment card of the user linked to the automatically opened new account; and making the mobile wallet available for transactions against the automatically opened new account in response to receiving the linked information (see at least ¶[0079] – “In other embodiments, the remittance processor 315 can handle payment. For example, the remittance processor can be operate by or on behalf of an entity associated with the coupon of FIG. 1, such as a utility or business. The user's account can then be linked with a bank, PayPal, or other account, such that when remittance processor 315 receives the remittance information, it can charge the appropriate amount to the user's account. FIGS. 46A-F illustrates example screens of an application that can run on a mobile device 340 and can be used for mobile remittance as described herein.”).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Nepomniachtchi et al. (Publication No.: US 2011/0091092 A1) in view of Love et al. (Patent No.: US 8,172,132 B2) in view of the publication by Upendra Mardlkar (Publication No.: US 2009/0307140 A1).
As to Claim 5, Nepomniachtchi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving primary document information further comprises receiving, at a network communications interface of a server, optical character recognition data converted from [[an]] the image of a primary document captured by [[the]] an image capturing mechanism of the mobile device (see at least ¶[0122]). Although Nepomniachtchi substantially teaches the invention of Claim 5, it does not explicitly teach via the established cryptographic tunnel. Mardlkar does teach via the established cryptographic tunnel (see at least ¶[0042], and ¶[0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the features of Mardlkar with those of Love and Nepomniachtchi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The motivation to combine is to provide another security measure in verification of account information.
As to Claim 6, Nepomniachtchi teaches the method of claim 5, wherein a primary document is selected from the group consisting of a personal check, a debit card, a credit card, a document containing a social security number of the user, and a document containing a Magnetic Ink Character Recognition line (see at least ¶[0072]).
As to Claim 7, Nepomniachtchi teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the primary document information includes an amount to be deposited in the account opened by a programmed processor of the server (¶[0231]).
Claims 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Nepomniachtchi et al. (Publication No.: US 2011/0091092 A1) and Love et al. (Patent No.: US 8,172,132 B2) as applied in claim 9 above and further in view of Nosek et al. (Patent No.: US 8,050,997 B1).
As to Claim 10, Nosek teaches the system of claim 9, wherein: the user identification information is validated using the primary document information using a validating service provided from a member selected from a third party validation network remote from the system, a linked ownership test deposit, validating responses received from a network communications interface of the mobile device to one or more know your customer questions, validating responses received from the network communications interface of the mobile device to one or more terms and conditions transmitted to the network communications interface of the mobile device of the user, and combinations thereof (see at least Col. 8, lines 59-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the features of Nosek with those of Love and Nepomniachtchi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The motivation to combine is to provide another security measure in verification of account information.
Claims 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Nepomniachtchi et al. (Publication No.: US 2011/0091092 A1) and Love et al. (Patent No.: US 8,172,132 B2) as applied in claim 16 above and further in view of Kotovich et al. (Publication No.: US 2006/0124726 A1).
As to Claim 19, Nepomniachtchi teaches the mobile device of claim 16, wherein; the instructions to receive user identification information further comprises instructions to cause the processor of the mobile device to: capture image information of a primary document via the mobile device; and convert the captured image information into the user identification information comprising using optical character recognition [[data]] (see at least [0084] – “An image of a remittance coupon is captured using a camera or other optical device of the mobile device 340 (step 405). For example, a user of the mobile device 340 can click a button or otherwise activate a camera or other optical device of mobile device 340 to cause the camera or other optical device to capture an image of a remittance coupon. FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a mobile image of a remittance coupon that has been captured using a camera associated with a mobile device 340.”, and ¶[0122] – “Often, a standard optical character recognition font, the OCR-A font, is used for printing the characters comprising the code line. The OCR-A font is a fixed-width font where the characters are typically spaced 0.10 inches apart. Because the OCR-A font is a standardized fixed-width font, the image correction module can use this information to determining a scaling factor for the image of the remittance coupon. The scaling factor to be used can vary from image to image, because the scaling is dependent upon the position of the camera or other image capture device relative to the document being imaged and can also be dependent upon optical characteristics of the device used to capture the image of the document.”). The a remittance coupon can be personalized and include identification information for the source to allow for marketing data collection by a merchant.
Although Nepomniachtchi and Love substantially teach the invention of Claim 17, they do not explicitly teach that the machine-readable code is a PDF417 barcode. Kotovich does teach the machine-readable code is a PDF417 barcode (see ¶[0033]-¶[0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the features of Kotovich with those of Love and Nepomniachtchi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The motivation to combine is to provide another security measure in verification of account information.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE S KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between M-F 10am-2pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Gart may be reached at (571)-272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IRENE KANG/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
5/23/2025
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights