DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has amended the claims to recite “determine, based on the extracted information and via a named entity recognition operation, one or more entities indicated by the one or more document images; and wherein at least one data source, of the one or more data sources, is determined based on the one or more entities”. The amended claims do not comprise the objected claims 7, 16 and 20 in its entirety, which was Examiners reasoning for objection. Independent claims 1, 8 and 17 do not recite “determine, based on the extracted information, a verification type associated with the account” or “determine, based on the verification type, a set of data sources;” as also claimed in dependent claims 7, 16 and 20. Therefore, the action will be made final necessitated by amendment.
With respect to Arguments, Kapcynski teaches validated ID system extracts personally identifying information of an individual (column 4, lines 28-37). The validated ID system (named entity recognition operation) determines whether the PII (extracted information) matches the consumer profile data (column 11, lines 50-55). In response to a determination that the PII does match consumer profile data associated with the individual, the validated ID system may generate a validated ID token for the digital ID of the individual. Once the validated ID token has been generated, the validated ID token may be associated with the consumer profile data associated with the individual (one or more entities indicated by the one or more document images) (column 11, lines 51-60 ) Note: the individual is read as the entity and the digital ID is read as the document image. This reads on determine, based on the extracted information and via a named entity recognition operation, one or more entities indicated by the one or more document images. The validated ID system determines the personally identifying information of an individual by extracting the information.
Kapcynski also teaches that the consumer profile (data source) is retrieved (based on) the -individual (entities) when the digital ID is validated (column 4, lines 17-26), which teaches wherein at least one data source, of the one or more data sources, is determined based on the one or more entities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 12-14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapcynski US 9721147 in view of Jones et al US 20170098134
Regarding claim 1, Kapcynski teaches a system for document analysis and extraction for verification events (column 1, lines 26-32), the system comprising:
one or more memories (one or more memory 130 (column 14, lines 26-29); and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (one or more central processing unit (“CPU”) 105 (column 14, lines 24-26), configured to:
obtain, via an asynchronous event associated with a data streaming platform, one or more document images associated with an account (the individual (account) can request validation of a digital ID, for example by providing the digital ID to the validated ID system (data streaming platform). The individual may scan a physical form of identification into a digital data format (e.g., an image file, a document, etc.) (asynchronous event). (column 3, lines 66-column 4, lines 1-7) The validated ID system may validate the digital ID by, for example, accessing one or more data sources (such as the data sources 166 as shown in FIG. 7) to retrieve consumer profile data associated with the individual (account) (column 4, lines 18-21);
detect, based on the asynchronous event, a verification event associated with the account, wherein the verification event is associated with one or more verification parameters (validated ID system may validate the digital ID by, for example, accessing one or more data sources (such as the data sources 166 as shown in FIG. 7) to retrieve consumer profile data associated with the individual. In order to validate the digital ID, the validated ID system can also use the consumer profile data associated with the individual to determine (detect) whether there is already a validated ID token (one or more verification parameters) that may be associated with the consumer profile for the individual (verification event) (column 4, lines 21-26);
obtain, via one or more document information extraction operations, extracted information from the one or more document images (the validated ID system may extract (obtain) personally identifying information such as the name, address, and other information associated with the individual (extracted information) from the digital ID (document images) provided by the individual. (column 4, lines 28-37);
determine, based on the extracted information and via a named entity recognition operation, one or more entities indicated by the one or more document images (validated ID system extracts personally identifying information of an individual (column 4, lines 28-37). The validated ID system (named entity recognition operation) determines whether the PII (extracted information) matches the consumer profile data (column 11, lines 50-55). In response to a determination that the PII does match consumer profile data associated with the individual, the validated ID system may generate a validated ID token for the digital ID of the individual. Once the validated ID token has been generated, the validated ID token may be associated with the consumer profile data associated with the individual (one or more entities indicated by the one or more document images) (column 11, lines 51-60 ) Note: the individual is read as the entity and the digital ID is read as the document image. This reads on determine, based on the extracted information and via a named entity recognition operation, one or more entities indicated by the one or more document images. The validated ID system determines the personally identifying information of an individual by extracting the information
determine, based on the extracted information and the one or more verification parameters, one or more data sources associated with the verification event (The validated ID system may then compare the extracted PII to the accessed consumer profile data to determine whether there is a match. If the PII extracted from the digital ID matches the consumer profile data, the validated ID system may generate a validated ID token for the digital ID for the individual (column 4, lines 28-37),
wherein at least one data source, of the one or more data sources, is determined based on the one or more entities (the consumer profile (data source) is retrieved (based on) the -individual (entities) when the digital ID is validated (column 4, lines 17-26), which teaches wherein at least one data source, of the one or more data sources, is determined based on the one or more entities);
communicate, with the one or more data sources, to obtain verification information that is based on the extracted information (validated ID system may validate the digital ID by, for example, accessing one or more data sources (such as the data sources 166 as shown in FIG. 7) to retrieve consumer profile data associated with the individual. the validated ID system may extract personally identifying information (“PII”) such as the name, address, and other information associated with the individual from the digital ID provided by the individual (column 4, lines 17-22);
Kapczynski fails to teach determine, based on the verification information and the one or more verification parameters, feedback information associated with the account, wherein the feedback information indicates whether any discrepancies exist associated with the one or more document images;
transmit, via the data streaming platform and based on obtaining the one or more document images, the feedback information
Jones et al teaches determine, based on the verification information and the one or more verification parameters, feedback information associated with the account (the generated total(s) are compared and matched to declared total(s), e.g., total(s) obtained from the smart container memory. If any discrepancies (feedback information) are detected (e.g., a difference in a grand total, currency bill total, check value total, and/or individual document values, etc.), a discrepancy signal would be generated and/or information about the discrepancy(ies) may be displayed on a display of the document processing device 11 (paragraph 0562),
wherein the feedback information indicates whether any discrepancies exist associated with the one or more document images (If any discrepancies (feedback information) are detected (e.g., a difference in a grand total, currency bill total, check value total, and/or individual document values, etc.), a discrepancy signal would be generated and/or information about the discrepancy(ies) may be displayed on a display of the document processing device 11 (e.g., ATM#1, MT-14) for the customer and/or a bank personnel to reconcile at that time (paragraph 0562); and
transmit, via the data streaming platform and based on obtaining the one or more document images, the feedback information (information (e.g., document images) about the discrepancy(ies) (feedback) may be transmitted to another device (e.g., computer 1452, PDA 1499-B1, etc. (data streaming platform) for bank personnel and/or customer review (paragraph 0562).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaczynski with determine, based on the verification information and the one or more verification parameters, feedback information associated with the account, wherein the feedback information indicates whether any discrepancies exist associated with the one or more document images;
transmit, via the data streaming platform and based on obtaining the one or more document images, the feedback information.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately verify a document.
Regarding claim 2, Kapczynski teaches wherein the one or more document information extraction operations include at least one of: an optical character recognition operation, a natural language processing operation, or a text mining operation (the digital identity service may perform OCR on the driver's license and then parse information on the driver's license according to regular expression logic configured to identify various pieces of identification information (column 17, lines 6-12).
Regarding claim 3, Kapczynski teaches wherein the one or more processors, to determine the one or more data sources, are configured to: determine, for a data source of the one or more data sources (the validated ID system may validate the digital ID by, for example, accessing one or more data sources (such as the data sources 166 as shown in FIG. 7) to retrieve consumer profile data associated with the individual (column 4, lines 18-22), an application programming interface (API) endpoint associated with the data source based on the extracted information (one or more other services, may each communicate with the digital identity service in order to access one or more digital identities of consumers via an API that is configured to allow such communication (column 19, lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 4, Kapcznski fails to teach wherein the one or more processors, to obtain the extracted information, are configured to:
extract, via the one or more document information extraction operations, the one or more verification parameters, wherein the one or more verification parameters include a requested amount parameter indicated by a document depicted by the one or more document images
Jones et al teaches wherein the one or more processors, to obtain the extracted information, are configured to:
extract, via the one or more document information extraction operations, the one or more verification parameters, wherein the one or more verification parameters include a requested amount parameter indicated by a document depicted by the one or more document images
(when the document processing device (e.g., ATM#1, MT-14) verifies the received documents matched the declared documents (e.g. the declared value(s) of currency bills and/or checks (requested amount), such as received from the memory of the smart container, matches the generated value(s) of currency bills and/or checks as determined by the device)(paragraph 0562) Note: the declared values are extracted and compared with the declared documents. The request amount is the declared values.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaczynski with wherein the one or more processors, to obtain the extracted information, are configured to: extract, via the one or more document information extraction operations, the one or more verification parameters, wherein the one or more verification parameters include a requested amount parameter indicated by a document depicted by the one or more document images.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately verify a document using desired parameters.
Regarding claim 8, Kapczynski teaches a method for document analysis and extraction for verification events (column 1, lines 26-32), comprising:
obtaining, by a device and via an asynchronous event associated with a data streaming platform, one or more document images associated with an account (the individual (account) can request validation of a digital ID, for example by providing the digital ID to the validated ID system (data streaming platform). The individual may scan a physical form of identification into a digital data format (e.g., an image file, a document, etc.) (asynchronous event). (column 3, lines 66-column 4, lines 1-7) The validated ID system may validate the digital ID by, for example, accessing one or more data sources (such as the data sources 166 as shown in FIG. 7) to retrieve consumer profile data associated with the individual (account) (column 4, lines 18-21);
detecting, by the device and based on the asynchronous event, a verification event associated with the account, wherein the verification event is associated with one or more verification parameters (validated ID system may validate the digital ID by, for example, accessing one or more data sources (such as the data sources 166 as shown in FIG. 7) to retrieve consumer profile data associated with the individual. In order to validate the digital ID, the validated ID system can also use the consumer profile data associated with the individual to determine (detect) whether there is already a validated ID token (one or more verification parameters) that may be associated with the consumer profile for the individual (verification event) (column 4, lines 21-26);
obtaining, by the device and via one or more document information extraction operations, extracted information from the one or more document images (the validated ID system may extract (obtain) personally identifying information such as the name, address, and other information associated with the individual (extracted information) from the digital ID (document images) provided by the individual. (column 4, lines 28-37);
determine, based on the extracted information and via a named entity recognition operation, one or more entities indicated by the one or more document images (validated ID system extracts personally identifying information of an individual (column 4, lines 28-37). The validated ID system (named entity recognition operation) determines whether the PII (extracted information) matches the consumer profile data (column 11, lines 50-55). In response to a determination that the PII does match consumer profile data associated with the individual, the validated ID system may generate a validated ID token for the digital ID of the individual. Once the validated ID token has been generated, the validated ID token may be associated with the consumer profile data associated with the individual (one or more entities indicated by the one or more document images) (column 11, lines 51-60 ) Note: the individual is read as the entity and the digital ID is read as the document image. This reads on determine, based on the extracted information and via a named entity recognition operation, one or more entities indicated by the one or more document images. The validated ID system determines the personally identifying information of an individual by extracting the information
communicating, by the device and with one or more data sources, to obtain verification information that is based on the extracted information, wherein the one or more data sources are based on the extracted information (validated ID system may validate the digital ID by, for example, accessing one or more data sources (such as the data sources 166 as shown in FIG. 7) to retrieve consumer profile data associated with the individual. the validated ID system may extract personally identifying information (“PII”) such as the name, address, and other information associated with the individual from the digital ID provided by the individual (column 4, lines 17-22);
wherein at least one data source, of the one or more data sources, is determined based on the one or more entities (the consumer profile (data source) is retrieved (based on) the -individual (entities) when the digital ID is validated (column 4, lines 17-26), which teaches wherein at least one data source, of the one or more data sources, is determined based on the one or more entities);
Kapczynski fails to teach determining, by the device and based on the verification information and the one or more verification parameters, feedback information associated with the account, wherein the feedback information indicates whether any discrepancies exist associated with the one or more document images; and
transmitting, by the device and via the data streaming platform, the feedback information based on obtaining the one or more document images.
Jones et al teaches determining, by the device and based on the verification information and the one or more verification parameters (the generated total(s) are compared and matched to declared total(s), e.g., total(s) obtained from the smart container memory. If any discrepancies (feedback information) are detected (e.g., a difference in a grand total, currency bill total, check value total, and/or individual document values, etc.), a discrepancy signal would be generated and/or information about the discrepancy(ies) may be displayed on a display of the document processing device 11 (paragraph 0562), feedback information associated with the account, wherein the feedback information indicates whether any discrepancies exist associated with the one or more document images (If any discrepancies (feedback information) are detected (e.g., a difference in a grand total, currency bill total, check value total, and/or individual document values, etc.), a discrepancy signal would be generated and/or information about the discrepancy(ies) may be displayed on a display of the document processing device 11 (e.g., ATM#1, MT-14) for the customer and/or a bank personnel to reconcile at that time (paragraph 0562); and
transmitting, by the device and via the data streaming platform, the feedback information based on obtaining the one or more document images (information (e.g., document images) about the discrepancy(ies) (feedback) may be transmitted to another device (e.g., computer 1452, PDA 1499-B1, etc. (data streaming platform) for bank personnel and/or customer review (paragraph 0562).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaczynski with determining, by the device and based on the verification information and the one or more verification parameters, feedback information associated with the account, wherein the feedback information indicates whether any discrepancies exist associated with the one or more document images; and transmitting, by the device and via the data streaming platform, the feedback information based on obtaining the one or more document images.
.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately verify a document.
Regarding claim 9, Kapczynski teaches determining, based on the extracted information and the one or more verification parameters, one or more communication channels associated with respective data sources from the one or more data sources (the digital identity may be stored on a server of the digital identity service and made available to third parties (e.g., online websites) via an API and/or other exchange protocol. In some embodiments, the digital identity may be stored on the consumers device, e.g., a mobile device of the consumer, such that information from the digital identity may be provided directly to requesting entities (e.g. a financial institution that requires the identity information) from the consumers mobile device (column 18, lines 30-40) Note: the digital identity is created from extracted personal information and is exchanged via website, which can read on communication channel to mobile device, which can read on data source.
Regarding claim 10, Kapczynski teaches wherein the one or more communication channels are associated with respective application programming interface (API) endpoints (the digital identity may be stored on a server of the digital identity service and made available to third parties (e.g., online websites) via an API (column 18, lines 30-40)
Regarding claim 12, Kapczynski fails to teach wherein determining the feedback information comprises: determining whether the verification information indicates that one or more parameters indicated by the extracted information are verified.
Jones et al teaches wherein determining the feedback information comprises: determining whether the verification information indicates that one or more parameters indicated by the extracted information are verified (If any discrepancies (feedback information) are detected (e.g., a difference in a grand total, currency bill total, check value total, and/or individual document values, etc.), a discrepancy signal would be generated and/or information about the discrepancy(ies) may be displayed on a display of the document processing device 11 (e.g., ATM#1, MT-14) for the customer and/or a bank personnel to reconcile at that time (paragraph 0562)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaczynski with wherein determining the feedback information comprises: determining whether the verification information indicates that one or more parameters indicated by the extracted information are verified.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately verify a document using desired parameters.
Regarding claim 13, Kapczynski teaches wherein the one or more document information extraction operations include at least one of: an optical character recognition operation, or a natural language processing operation (the digital identity service may perform OCR on the driver's license and then parse information on the driver's license according to regular expression logic configured to identify various pieces of identification information (column 17, lines 6-12).
Regarding claim 14, Kapczynski fails to teach wherein obtaining the extracted information comprises:
extracting, via the one or more document information extraction operations, the one or more verification parameters, wherein the one or more verification parameters include a requested amount parameter indicated by a document depicted by the one or more document images.
Jones et al teaches wherein obtaining the extracted information comprises:
extracting, via the one or more document information extraction operations, the one or more verification parameters, wherein the one or more verification parameters include a requested amount parameter indicated by a document depicted by the one or more document images (when the document processing device (e.g., ATM#1, MT-14) verifies the received documents matched the declared documents (e.g. the declared value(s) of currency bills and/or checks (requested amount), such as received from the memory of the smart container, matches the generated value(s) of currency bills and/or checks as determined by the device)(paragraph 0562) Note: the declared values are extracted and compared with the declared documents. The request amount is the declared values.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaczynski with wherein obtaining the extracted information comprises:
extracting, via the one or more document information extraction operations, the one or more verification parameters, wherein the one or more verification parameters include a requested amount parameter indicated by a document depicted by the one or more document images.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately verify a document using desired parameters.
Regarding claim 17, Kapczynski teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions (column 19, lines 65-67), the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions that (column 19, lines 65-67), when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to:
obtain, via an asynchronous event associated with a data streaming platform, one or more document images associated with an account (the individual (account) can request validation of a digital ID, for example by providing the digital ID to the validated ID system (data streaming platform). The individual may scan a physical form of identification into a digital data format (e.g., an image file, a document, etc.) (asynchronous event). (column 3, lines 66-column 4, lines 1-7) The validated ID system may validate the digital ID by, for example, accessing one or more data sources (such as the data sources 166 as shown in FIG. 7) to retrieve consumer profile data associated with the individual (account) (column 4, lines 18-21);
detect, based on the asynchronous event, a verification event associated with the account, wherein the verification event is associated with one or more verification parameters (validated ID system may validate the digital ID by, for example, accessing one or more data sources (such as the data sources 166 as shown in FIG. 7) to retrieve consumer profile data associated with the individual. In order to validate the digital ID, the validated ID system can also use the consumer profile data associated with the individual to determine (detect) whether there is already a validated ID token (one or more verification parameters) that may be associated with the consumer profile for the individual (verification event) (column 4, lines 21-26);
obtain, via one or more document information extraction operations, extracted information from the one or more document images (the validated ID system may extract (obtain) personally identifying information such as the name, address, and other information associated with the individual (extracted information) from the digital ID (document images) provided by the individual. (column 4, lines 28-37);
determine, based on the extracted information and via a named entity recognition operation, one or more entities indicated by the one or more document images (validated ID system extracts personally identifying information of an individual (column 4, lines 28-37). The validated ID system (named entity recognition operation) determines whether the PII (extracted information) matches the consumer profile data (column 11, lines 50-55). In response to a determination that the PII does match consumer profile data associated with the individual, the validated ID system may generate a validated ID token for the digital ID of the individual. Once the validated ID token has been generated, the validated ID token may be associated with the consumer profile data associated with the individual (one or more entities indicated by the one or more document images) (column 11, lines 51-60 ) Note: the individual is read as the entity and the digital ID is read as the document image. This reads on determine, based on the extracted information and via a named entity recognition operation, one or more entities indicated by the one or more document images. The validated ID system determines the personally identifying information of an individual by extracting the information
determine, based on the extracted information and the one or more verification parameters, one or more data sources associated with the verification event (The validated ID system may then compare the extracted PII to the accessed consumer profile data to determine whether there is a match. If the PII extracted from the digital ID matches the consumer profile data, the validated ID system may generate a validated ID token for the digital ID for the individual (column 4, lines 28-37),
wherein at least one data source, of the one or more data sources, is determined based on the one or more entities (the consumer profile (data source) is retrieved (based on) the -individual (entities) when the digital ID is validated (column 4, lines 17-26), which teaches wherein at least one data source, of the one or more data sources, is determined based on the one or more entities);
communicate, with the one or more data sources, to obtain verification information that is based on the extracted information (validated ID system may validate the digital ID by, for example, accessing one or more data sources (such as the data sources 166 as shown in FIG. 7) to retrieve consumer profile data associated with the individual. the validated ID system may extract personally identifying information (“PII”) such as the name, address, and other information associated with the individual from the digital ID provided by the individual (column 4, lines 17-22);
Kapczynski fails to teach determine, based on the verification information and the one or more verification parameters, feedback information associated with the account, wherein the feedback information indicates whether any discrepancies exist associated with the one or more document images;
transmit, via the data streaming platform and based on obtaining the one or more document images, the feedback information
Jones et al teaches determine, based on the verification information and the one or more verification parameters, feedback information associated with the account (the generated total(s) are compared and matched to declared total(s), e.g., total(s) obtained from the smart container memory. If any discrepancies (feedback information) are detected (e.g., a difference in a grand total, currency bill total, check value total, and/or individual document values, etc.), a discrepancy signal would be generated and/or information about the discrepancy(ies) may be displayed on a display of the document processing device 11 (paragraph 0562),
wherein the feedback information indicates whether any discrepancies exist associated with the one or more document images (If any discrepancies (feedback information) are detected (e.g., a difference in a grand total, currency bill total, check value total, and/or individual document values, etc.), a discrepancy signal would be generated and/or information about the discrepancy(ies) may be displayed on a display of the document processing device 11 (e.g., ATM#1, MT-14) for the customer and/or a bank personnel to reconcile at that time (paragraph 0562); and
transmit, via the data streaming platform and based on obtaining the one or more document images, the feedback information (information (e.g., document images) about the discrepancy(ies) (feedback) may be transmitted to another device (e.g., computer 1452, PDA 1499-B1, etc. (data streaming platform) for bank personnel and/or customer review (paragraph 0562).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaczynski with determine, based on the verification information and the one or more verification parameters, feedback information associated with the account, wherein the feedback information indicates whether any discrepancies exist associated with the one or more document images;
transmit, via the data streaming platform and based on obtaining the one or more document images, the feedback information
The reason of doing so would be to accurately verify a document.
Regarding claim 18, Kapczynski teaches wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to determine the one or more data sources, cause the device to: determine, for a data source of the one or more data sources (the validated ID system may validate the digital ID by, for example, accessing one or more data sources (such as the data sources 166 as shown in FIG. 7) to retrieve consumer profile data associated with the individual (column 4, lines 18-22), an application programming interface (API) endpoint associated with the data source based on the extracted information (one or more other services, may each communicate with the digital identity service in order to access one or more digital identities of consumers via an API that is configured to allow such communication (column 19, lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 19, Kapczynski fails to teach wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to obtain the extracted information, cause the device to:
extract, via the one or more document information extraction operations, the one or more verification parameters, wherein the one or more verification parameters include a requested amount parameter indicated by a document depicted by the one or more document images.
Jones et al teaches wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to obtain the extracted information, cause the device to:
extract, via the one or more document information extraction operations, the one or more verification parameters, wherein the one or more verification parameters include a requested amount parameter indicated by a document depicted by the one or more document images (when the document processing device (e.g., ATM#1, MT-14) verifies the received documents matched the declared documents (e.g. the declared value(s) of currency bills and/or checks (requested amount), such as received from the memory of the smart container, matches the generated value(s) of currency bills and/or checks as determined by the device)(paragraph 0562) Note: the declared values are extracted and compared with the declared documents. The request amount is the declared values.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaczynski with wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to obtain the extracted information, cause the device to:
extract, via the one or more document information extraction operations, the one or more verification parameters, wherein the one or more verification parameters include a requested amount parameter indicated by a document depicted by the one or more document images
The reason of doing so would be to accurately verify a document.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapcynski US 9721147 in view of Jones et al US 20170098134 further in view of Reilly et al US 20200134564.
Regarding claim 6, Kapczyski in view of Jones et al teach all of the limitations of claim 1
Kapczyski in view of Jones et al fails to teach wherein the data streaming platform includes a serverless function associated with a cloud computing environment.
Reilly et al teaches wherein the data streaming platform includes a serverless function associated with a cloud computing environment (using a Serverless framework, Django functions, and Jason Web Tokens (JWT). The platform API gateway is a fully managed service that makes it easy for developers to create, publish, maintain, monitor and secure API's at any scale. The cloud infrastructure is built on AWS (paragraph 0061)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaczynski in view of Jones et al with wherein the data streaming platform includes a serverless function associated with a cloud computing environment
The reason of doing so would be to securely store document images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5, 7, 11, 15, 16 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L BURLESON whose telephone number is (571)272-7460. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 530pm.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270- 3438. 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.
Michael Burleson
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2681
Michael Burleson
May 12, 2026
/MICHAEL BURLESON/
/AKWASI M SARPONG/ SPE, Art Unit 2681 5/18/2026
Prosecution Insights