Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 05/08/2026.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17 and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1,2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, 18 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 21-25 have been added.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20-25 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserted on page 11 that “the claimed solution recites a practical application directed to a new and innovative technology to facilitate performing deposit . . . “ & “under Step 2A, this technology as claimed provides an important technical advantage over prior art systems . . .”. However, per reviewing the claimed limitations in light of the specification, the use of a mobile device to deposit a financial instrument and registration of such device are not technical improvements. They are leveraging the use of an existing technology. Hence, Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Similarly, the claim is evaluated under Step 2B, the limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the applicant has sufficiently amended the scope of the claim invention. Hence, the arguments are moot over new ground(s) of rejection. Please refer to the 103 rejection below for further details.
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, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20-25 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite, in part, a server computer system, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors, the non-transitory memory including a set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: authenticate a client device of a user as an authenticated client device in a secure, authenticated network environment; receive, from the authenticated client device, a client request to access a mobile deposit application having one or more mobile deposit fields that facilitate mobile deposit of a financial instrument into a financial account of the user; capture, from a the authenticated client device, mobile deposit data in response to the client device decoding a machine-readable barcode displayed on a and unique to the financial instrument; automatically populate the one or more mobile deposit fields of the mobile deposit application with the captured mobile deposit data; and deposit the financial instrument into the financial account of the user based on the captured mobile deposit data. The limitations are directed to “business relations” – banking deposit (commercial interactions - see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” 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 such as an apparatus, one or more processors, a non-transitory memory, an authenticated client device, a machine-readable barcode to perform receiving, performing. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (causing and populating) such that it is adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1, 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving and identifying data are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device used to transmit a payment is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) causing a visual display. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (such as a an apparatus, one or more processors, a user interface) are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) causing a client command to deposit the financial instrument into a financial account. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (such as a an apparatus, one or more processors, a user interface) are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a machine-readable barcode comprises a QR code. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (such as a an apparatus, one or more processors, a user interface) are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) causing a command to deposit. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (such as a an apparatus, one or more processors, a user interface) are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) capturing image of the financial instrument. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (such as a an apparatus, one or more processors, a user interface) are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) including a routing number. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (such as a an apparatus, one or more processors, a user interface) are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) capturing and verifying data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (such as a an apparatus, one or more processors, a user interface) are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 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, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimassi et al. (US 2022/0261813 A1) in view of Foster et al. (US 12,039,504 B1) in further view of Kurani (US 2023/0230070 A1)..
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, is taught: Mimassi teaches: A server computer system, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors (see at least par. [0067] “CPU 12 may include one or more processors 13 such as, for example, a processor from one of the Intel, ARM, Qualcomm, and AMD families of microprocessors. In some aspects, processors 13 may include specially designed hardware such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), electrically erasable programmable read-only memories (EEPROMs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), and so forth, for controlling operations of computing device 10. In a particular aspect, a local memory 11 (such as non-volatile random access memory (RAM) and/or read-only memory (ROM), including for example one or more levels of cached memory) may also form part of CPU 12. However, there are many different ways in which memory may be coupled to system 10 . . .”), the non-transitory memory including a set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
capture, from the authenticated client device mobile deposit data in response to the client device decoding a machine-readable barcode displayed on and unique to the financial instrument (Mimassi, see at least par. [0052] “. . . The QR code application 162 is software operating on the mobile device 160 that may use the camera 161 to identify and scan QR codes the camera is pointed to, and access the URL that they encode, along with possibly other features including interactive web page integration and the ability to operate compiled code such as WEBASSEMBLY™ code, such as that sent from an interaction handler 212 when a URL is accessed that leads to a page generated by a transaction page generator 213. In this way, the user may use their mobile device to scan a displayed QR code, and finish their transaction without touching any other POS device aside from the banking card interaction. The finished transaction may then have funds transferred as per usual for a transaction with banking cards, with at least one, but potentially multiple financial institutions and accounts 210, 150. For instance, funds may be withdrawn from a user's account at one institution, and deposited into an account at another institution operated by the business . . .”);
Mimassi does not teach the following; however, Foster teaches:
automatically populate one or more mobile deposit fields of the mobile deposit application with the captured mobile deposit data (Foster et al. (US 12,039,504 B1), Col. 24 ln 10-22, see at least “. . . The OCR data generated from the check image is superimposed on or integrated with the check representation image 406a in the appropriate check field location (e.g., OCR data for a check amount is presented in a check amount box on the check representation image). For instance, the content can be placed within a bounding box of a corresponding field (e.g., date content is put in a date bounding box located relative to the date field). In some embodiments, the OCR data includes a payee name 408a, a check number 410a, a date 412a, a check amount in words 414a, a memo 416a, MICR line data 418a including a routing number 420a, an account number 422a, and a check number 424a, and a check amount in a check amount box 426a . . .”) The data fields are populated by the scanned image or code;
and deposit the financial instrument into the financial account of the user based on the captured mobile deposit data (Foster, Col. 10 ln 7-21 “ If the OCR data is validated, the financial institution server provides a notification to the mobile device indicating that the OCR data from the check image is valid to complete the remote check deposit process. In response to receiving a notification that the OCR data has been validated at the mobile device, a confirmation request is presented on the user interface for confirmation to process the check for remote deposit. Upon receiving confirmation to process the check for remote deposit, the captured check image is sent to the financial institution server to complete the remote check deposit. After the deposit is complete, the mobile device receives a deposit receipt notification.”)
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mimassi by populating deposit fields as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi using elements taught by Foster helps to better render a remote deposit via a financial instruction server (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Mimassi in view of Foster does not disclose the following; however, Kurani teaches:
authenticate a client device of a user as an authenticated client device in a secure, authenticated network environment (Kurani, see at least par. [0033] “(1) the user associated with the device being registered must be a registered user of the mobile wallet system; (2) the user must have a valid mobile device 124 (e.g., a mobile device having an operating system that is compatible with the mobile wallet client 126, an NFC and HCE enabled mobile device, etc.); and (3) the user is registering the device during an authenticated mobile banking session”) The cited portion discloses the process of registering a device for authentication;
receive, from the authenticated client device, a client request to access a mobile deposit application having one or more mobile deposit fields that facilitate mobile deposit of a financial instrument into a financial account of the user (Kurani, see at least par. [0038] “The financial institution computing system 104 transmits the information to the payment network 118. The payment network 118 utilizes the received user information to generate an access token that allows the financial institution 102 to access the payment network 118 to update payment information (i.e., credit card and debit card information). The payment network 118 utilizes the mobile device information (i.e., the user's mobile device 124 identifier) to register the device with the payment network 118 (which is later used to verify payment requests).”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mimassi in view of Foster by authenticating a user device as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi in view of Foster using elements taught by Kurani helps to better register a user device on a payment network (par. [0033]). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are grouped together. Claim 2, for instance, is taught: Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani teaches: The apparatus of claim 1. However, Foster teaches: wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to cause, temporally prior to capturing the mobile deposit data, a visual display of a dashboard on a user interface of the client device, the dashboard having financial account content associated with the financial account, and the financial instrument is to be deposited into the financial account in response to the client command (Foster, Col. 2 ln 6-17 “. . . provide the OCR data to a financial institution server for validation processing; in response to receiving a confirmation notification from the financial institution server that the OCR data has been validated: present, on a user interface of the mobile device, a request for confirmation from a user to process the check for remote deposit; in response to receiving a confirmation from the user to process the check for remote deposit: provide the check image to the financial instruction server with instructions to process the check for remote deposit; and receive, at the mobile device, a deposit receipt notification from the financial institution server after the check is deposited.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani by presenting a visual display as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani using elements taught by Foster helps to better render a remote deposit via a financial instruction server. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claims 4 and 11 are grouped together. Claim 4, for instance, is taught: Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani teaches: The apparatus of claim 1. However, Foster teaches: wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to receive, from the client device temporally after populating the one or more mobile deposit fields with the captured mobile deposit data, a client command to deposit the financial instrument into the financial account , and the financial instrument is to be deposited into the financial account of the user in response to the client command. (Foster, Col 19 ln 60-65 “ If so, then the process may end (e.g., with an error message being sent to the user) or may continue under modified conditions (e.g., with a flag indicating manual review is necessary before depositing). Before, during, or after operation 352, the method 300 can include operation 354.”) manual review to confirm deposit corresponds to command to deposit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani by receiving a client command to deposit as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani using elements taught by Foster helps to better render a remote deposit via a financial instruction server. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are grouped together: Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani teaches: The server computer system of claim 1. Furthermore, Mimassi teaches: wherein the machine-readable barcode comprises a QR code, and the mobile deposit data comprises financial data of the user and personal identifiable information of the user (Mimassi, see at least par. [0016] “. . . generating a QR code, the QR code comprising at least a user identification, an order description, and payment details, using the mobile device”) .
Claim 18 is disclosed: Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 15. However, Foster teaches: further comprising: receiving, from the client device by the one or more financial institution servers temporally after populating the one or more mobile deposit fields with the captured mobile deposit data, a client command to deposit the financial instrument into the financial account (Foster, Col 19 ln 60-65 “ If so, then the process may end (e.g., with an error message being sent to the user) or may continue under modified conditions (e.g., with a flag indicating manual review is necessary before depositing). Before, during, or after operation 352, the method 300 can include operation 354.”) manual review to confirm deposit corresponds to command to deposit, and depositing, by the one or more financial institution servers in response to the client command, the financial instrument into the financial account(Foster, Col. 20 ln 54-62 “In operation 324, a request for confirmation to process the check for deposit is presented on the user interface of the mobile device 104. In some embodiments, the request for confirmation presented on the user interface includes presenting a selectable element on the user interface that, if selected by the user, indicates that a confirmation has been received from the user to process the check for deposit. Following operation 324, the flow of the method 300 can move to operation 326.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani by receiving a client command to deposit as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani using elements taught by Foster helps to better render a remote deposit via a financial instruction server. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claims 21 and 23 are grouped together. Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani teaches: The server computer system of claim 1. Furthermore, Foster teaches: wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: capture, from the authenticated client device, an image of the financial instrument; and verify one or more items of the mobile deposit data based on the captured image of the financial instrument (Foster, Col. 2 ln 6-17 “. . . provide the OCR data to a financial institution server for validation processing; in response to receiving a confirmation notification from the financial institution server that the OCR data has been validated: present, on a user interface of the mobile device, a request for confirmation from a user to process the check for remote deposit; in response to receiving a confirmation from the user to process the check for remote deposit: provide the check image to the financial instruction server with instructions to process the check for remote deposit; and receive, at the mobile device, a deposit receipt notification from the financial institution server after the check is deposited.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani by receiving a client command to deposit as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani using elements taught by Foster helps to better render a remote deposit via a financial instruction server. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claims 22 and 24 are grouped together. Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani teaches: The apparatus of claim 21. Foster further teaches: wherein: the financial instrument comprises a check, and the mobile deposit data includes a routing number, an account number of the user, and a check number (Foster et al. (US 12,039,504 B1), Col. 24 ln 10-22, see at least “. . . The OCR data generated from the check image is superimposed on or integrated with the check representation image 406a in the appropriate check field location (e.g., OCR data for a check amount is presented in a check amount box on the check representation image). For instance, the content can be placed within a bounding box of a corresponding field (e.g., date content is put in a date bounding box located relative to the date field). In some embodiments, the OCR data includes a payee name 408a, a check number 410a, a date 412a, a check amount in words 414a, a memo 416a, MICR line data 418a including a routing number 420a, an account number 422a, and a check number 424a, and a check amount in a check amount box 426a . . .”) The data fields are populated by the scanned image or code.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani by receiving a client command to deposit as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani using elements taught by Foster helps to better render a remote deposit via a financial instruction server. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 25. Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 15. Foster further teaches: further comprising: capturing, by the server computer system from the authenticated client device, an image of the financial instrument; and verifying, by the server computer system, one or more items of the mobile deposit data based on the image of the financial instrument, wherein the financial instrument comprises a check, and the mobile deposit data includes a routing number, an account number of the user, and a check number (Foster, Col. 24 ln 10-22, see at least “. . . The OCR data generated from the check image is superimposed on or integrated with the check representation image 406a in the appropriate check field location (e.g., OCR data for a check amount is presented in a check amount box on the check representation image). For instance, the content can be placed within a bounding box of a corresponding field (e.g., date content is put in a date bounding box located relative to the date field). In some embodiments, the OCR data includes a payee name 408a, a check number 410a, a date 412a, a check amount in words 414a, a memo 416a, MICR line data 418a including a routing number 420a, an account number 422a, and a check number 424a, and a check amount in a check amount box 426a . . .”) The data fields are populated by the scanned image or code;.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani by receiving a client command to deposit as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi in view of Foster in further view of Kurani using elements taught by Foster helps to better render a remote deposit via a financial instruction server. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Michael W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights