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 application filed on 02/08/2024
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 and have been examined.
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 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1-20 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, an apparatus, 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: capture, from a client device executing a mobile deposit application of a financial institution mobile application or financial institution desktop application to facilitate client device access to and client management of a financial account maintained by the financial institution, mobile deposit data in response to the client device decoding a machine-readable barcode displayed on a financial instrument; and populate one or more mobile deposit fields of the mobile deposit application with 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, a client device, a mobile deposit application, 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 generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). 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 3, 10 and 17 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) receiving a client request. 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 5 and 12 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) receiving a client 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 6, 13 and 19 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 mobile deposit data comprises personal identifiable information. 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.
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 1-20 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).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, is taught: Mimassi teaches: An apparatus, 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 a client device executing a mobile deposit application of a financial institution mobile application or financial institution desktop application to facilitate client device access to and client management of a financial account maintained by the financial institution, mobile deposit data in response to the client device decoding a machine-readable barcode displayed on a financial instrument (Mimassi et al. (US 2022/0261813 A1), 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:
and 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.
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.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are grouped together. Claim 2, for instance, is taught: Mimassi in view of Foster 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 (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 by presenting a visual display as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi 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 3, 10 and 17 are grouped together. Claim 3, for instance, is taught: Mimassi in view of Foster teaches: The apparatus of claim 2. 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 prior to capturing the mobile deposit data, a client request to access the mobile deposit application (Col. 30 ln 32-35 “. . . n some examples, user consent to access the camera of the mobile device 104 is obtained. Following actuation of the user actuatable button 902, the mobile device 104 displays the third user interface 1000 as shown in FIG. 10.”).
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 causing an apparatus to receive a request to access the mobile deposit as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi 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 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 (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 by receiving a client command to deposit as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi 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 5 and 12 are grouped together. Claim 5, for instance, is taught: Mimassi in view of Foster teaches: The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to deposit, 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 by receiving a client command to deposit as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi 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 6, 13 and 19 are grouped together: Mimassi in view of Foster teaches: The apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Mimassi teaches: wherein the mobile deposit data comprises personal identifiable information and financial data (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”) .
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are grouped together: Mimassi in view of Foster teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable barcode comprises a QR code (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 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 by receiving a client command to deposit as taught by Foster, because modifying Mimassi 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
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
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693