DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 30, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated June 30, 2026.
2. Claims 1, 12-16, 18-20, and 23-33 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 23-33 are newly added.
4. Claims 2-11, 17 and 21-22 have been canceled.
5. Claims 1, 12-16, and 18-20 have been amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
6. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
7. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e. the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
The preamble of instant claim 1 recites "’[a] computer-implemented method for a remote deposit environment” In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claims. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or an intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation given patentable weight. Rowe v. Dror, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2111.02
In the instant case, “for a remote deposit environment” as recited in the preamble only states a purpose and/or the intended use of the invention and accordingly is not being assigned any patentable weight.
Further, the following italicized limitations are further being interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention:
As in Claim 1 and substantially similarly in Claims 19—20:
receiving, over a network by one or more processors of a backend banking system from a mobile banking app resident on a mobile device associated with a user, via an application programming interface (API) that interacts with the mobile banking app, a remote deposit request, the remote deposit request comprising a location of the remote deposit request and an image file that includes a deposit check image and metadata, wherein the location of the remote deposit request comprises a location of the mobile device obtained by the mobile banking app from a global positioning sensor (GPS) of the mobile device at a time the user is interacting with the mobile banking app to submit the remote deposit request;
Here, the active method step is receiving by the one or more processors of a backend banking system data from a mobile banking app resident on a mobile device associated with a user. The remote deposit request data is being received by the backend banking system. Part of the data being received is the location of the remote deposit request that the mobile banking app has garnered from the mobile device – however, the recitation of how the data is captured is not by the backend banking system, it is by the mobile device, which is not actively being recited in this step. This is attempting to recite limitations without actively presenting the method step.
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.
8. Claims 1, 12-16, 18-20, and 23-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a method claim. Claim 19 recites a system claim. Claim 20 recites a CRM claim.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of check deposit processing. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receiving a remote deposit request, the remote deposit request comprising a location of the remote deposit request and an image file that includes a deposit check image and data, wherein the location of the remote deposit request comprises a location obtained at a time user is interacting to submit the remote deposit request;
obtaining an image capture location of the deposit check image from the data;
comparing the image capture location of the deposit check image to the location of the remote deposit request; and
in response to the image capture location not matching the location of the remote deposit request, rejecting the remote deposit request.
Claim 19 recites the abstract idea of submitting a remote access request. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receive a remote access request, the remote access request comprising a location of the remote access request and an image file that includes a submission document image and data, wherein the location of the remote access request comprises a location obtained at a time the user is interacting to submit the remote access request;
obtain an image capture location of the submission document image from the data;
compare the image capture location of the submission document image to the location of the remote access request; and
in response to the image capture location not matching the location of the remote access request, reject the remote access request.
Claim 20 recites the abstract idea of check deposit processing. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receiving a remote deposit request, the remote deposit request comprising a location of the remote deposit request and an image file that includes a deposit check image and data, wherein the location of the remote deposit request comprises a location obtained at a time the user is interacting to submit the remote deposit request;
obtaining an image capture location of the deposit check image from the data;
comparing the image capture location of the deposit check image to the location of the remote deposit request; and
in response to the image capture not matching the location of the remote deposit request, requesting the remote deposit request.
Under a BRI, the limitations may reflect no more than a receiving a request that includes location data, an image file and data that reflects the location of the request at the time it was made. This is still data that was captured at a point in time and is being sent to the backend processor. The data is then analyzed and a comparison is made between the location obtained from the received data and the location from which the user submitted the request, which is also, as claimed, is received data to the backend. Then, if the comparison of the locations do not match, the request is rejected.
Broadly construed, the claims are still comparing data to determine if the remote request should be rejected or not, the type of data (location data) that is being compared is still data that has been received by the backend before being compared.
As to certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps involve fundamental economic practices (i.e., deposits, access requests); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., as seen above). (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 1 recites a network, one or more processors of a backend banking system, a mobile banking app, a mobile device with a GPS, an API, and metadata.
Claim 19 recites a memory, at least one processor of a backend system coupled to the memory, a network, a mobile app resident on a mobile device with a GPS, an API, and metadata.
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, at least one computing device of a backend banking system, a network, mobile app resident on a mobile device with GPS, an API, and metadata.
In particular, the claims recite a network, one or more processors of a backend banking system, a mobile banking app, a mobile device with a GPS, an API, and metadata, a memory, at least one processor of a backend system coupled to the memory, and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 19 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) 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) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network; performing repetitive calculations; storing and retrieving information in memory and electronically scanning or extracting data– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
Example remote check capture and remote deposit system architecture is disclosed at a high level in paragraphs 38 and 54 and Figures 1 and 3 of Applicant’s specification. Similarly, the mobile computing device is also recited at a high level. (See Applicant Spec para 40) A client device and an embodiment of a mobile banking app are also disclosed at a high level. (See Applicant Spec para 86 and Fig. 5)
Figure 10 and the associated description disclose an example computer system for implementing various embodiments. (See Applicant Spec paras 215-228)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 1, 19 and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 12-16, 18 and 23-33 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the respective independent Claims 1, 19-20 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above
Dependent Claim 12 further recites reading by an OCR program or model operated by one or more of the processors of the backend banking system or by one or more processors of the mobile device under the direction of the mobile banking app. This is using an OCR program or model as a tool by either of the processors of the backend banking system or mobile device recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 13 recites comparing the payee name to a payee name stored in memory of the backend banking system in communication with the mobile device; and in response to the payee name not matching the stored payee name, determining that the deposit check image is fraudulent. This is comparing data utilizing a processor which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 14 using OCR program or model to read an amount depicted in the deposit check image and a MICR line depicted in the deposit check image. This is still using an OCR program or model as a tool recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 15 further recites identifying a payer associated with the deposit check image using the MICR line; comparing the payee name and the amount to a list of payee names and corresponding amounts, the list having been communicated to the backend banking system by the payer; and in response to the payee name and the amount not matching a payee name and a corresponding amount of the list, determining that the deposit check image is fraudulent. This is comparing data utilizing a processor which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 16 further recites obtaining from the image file, deposit visual metadata related to at least one of brightness or blue light for the deposit check image; comparing the deposit visual metadata to one or more predetermined thresholds; and determining a confidence score indicating whether the deposit check image is an image of a displayed or printed image based on the comparison of the deposit visual metadata to the one or more predetermined thresholds. This is still comparing data and determining a score based on a comparison of data which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 18 further recites determining the deposit visual metadata related to at least one of brightness or blue light based on pixel data of the image file including an RGB, YCBCr code, a HEX color code, a CMYK code, an HSL code or an HSB code. The determination is recited at a high level with no details as to how it is being done and is undertaken by the one or more processors, which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 23 further recites wherein the submission document image depicts a financial instrument, the remote access request is a remote deposit request, and the backend system is a backend banking system, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to read, by an OCR program or model, a payee name depicted in the submission document image. Here, the at least one processor of the backend system is using an OCR program or model as a tool such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 24 further recites comparing the payee name to a name stored in the memory; and in response to the payee name not matching the stored payee name, determine that the submission document image is fraudulent. This is comparing data utilizing a processor which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 25 further recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to read, by the OCR program or model, an amount depicted in the submission document image and a MICR line depicted in the submission document image. This is using an OCR program or model as a tool by the at least one processor of the system recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 26 further recites identify a payer associated with the submission document image using the MICR line; compare the payee name and the amount to a list of payee names and corresponding amounts, the listing having been communicated to the backend by the payer; and in response to the payee name and the amount not matching a payee name and corresponding amount of the list, determine that the submission document image is fraudulent. This is comparing data utilizing a processor which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 27 further recites obtain from the image file, visual metadata related to blue light for the submission document image; compare the visual metadata to one or more predetermined thresholds; and determine a confidence score indicating whether the submission document image is an image of a displayed or printed image based on the comparison of the visual metadata to the one or more predetermined thresholds. This is still comparing data and determining a score based on a comparison of data which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 28 further recites to determine the visual metadata related to blue light based on pixel data of the image file including an RGB, YCbCr code, a HEX color code, a CMYK code, an HSL code or an HSB code. The determination is recited at a high level with no details as to how it is being done and is undertaken by the one or more processors, which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 29 further recites reading, by an OCR program or model, a payee name depicted in the deposit check image. This is using an OCR program or model as a tool by at least one computing device recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 30 further recites comparing the payee name to a payee name stored in memory of the backend and in response to the payee name not matching the stored payee name, determining that the deposit check image is fraudulent. This is comparing data utilizing at least one computing device which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 31 further recites reading, by the OCR program or model, an amount depicted in the deposit check image and a MICR line depicted in the deposit check image. This is using an OCR program or model as a tool by the at least one computing device of a backend banking system recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 32 further recites identifying a payer associated with the deposit check image using the MICR line; comparing the payee name and the amount to a list of payee names and corresponding amounts, the list having been communicated to the backend by the payer; and in response to the payee name and the amount not matching a payee name and corresponding amount of the list, determining that the deposit check image is fraudulent. This is comparing data utilizing a processor which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 33 further recites determining deposit visual metadata related to at least one of brightness or blue light based on pixel data of the image file including an RGB code, a YCbCr code, a HEX color code, a CMYK code, an HSL code, or an HSB code; comparing the deposit visual metadata to one or more predetermined thresholds; and determining a confidence score indicating whether the deposit check image is an image of a displayed or printed image based on the comparison of the deposit visual metadata to the one or more predetermined thresholds. This is still comparing data and determining a score based on a comparison of data which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
No further additional components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1, 12-16, 18-20, and 23-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner Note:
The claims have been amended in a way that results in the active step (as in Claim 1) is data being received from a mobile banking app to one or more processors of a backend banking system via an API without a temporal limitation. The location of the remote deposit request is recited in a wherein clause and recites that the location deposit request comprises a location of the mobile device obtained by the mobile banking app from a GPS of the mobile device when the user is interacting with the mobile banking app to submit the remote deposit request – however, the data is being sent by the mobile app via an API. While the mobile device operating the mobile app could capture the location of the remote deposit request using the GPS capability of the mobile device at the time of the request, this data is not recited as being captured by the backend banking system at the time of the remote deposit request, rather, the backend banking system is receiving data from the mobile app without temporal limitations. The remaining steps are obtaining and comparing data that has been received. Claim 20 has been recited similarly.
Claim 19 has been amended to be even broader by reciting a backend system, a remote access request and an image file that includes a submission document image without linking the system to a remote deposit, mobile banking or check deposits.
Actively claiming how the sensor of the mobile device is sending image data and metadata to the backend banking system that is captured in real time could move the claims closer to subject matter patent eligibility.
Relevant Prior Art Made of Record Not Currently Being Applied
Kolchin (US PG Pub. 2023/0133158) – disclosing conducting electronic transactions through a computing device between a consumer and a merchant in real time. (See Kolchin para 7) In some embodiments, the electronic transaction will be conducted on a consumer’s mobile phone, which possesses capabilities of GPS location identification. (See Kolchin para 10) According to an embodiment, the method includes receiving request, from a user, to perform a transaction with a merchant, generating a virtual check comprising a checking account number, bank routing number, and a date; displaying the virtual check on at least one display of an electronic device of a user or the merchant; receiving input from the user corresponding to at least one of a plurality of check fields; receiving a virtual signature from the user; encrypting the virtual signature; storing the encrypted virtual signature in a database; decrypting and embedding, in the image of the virtual check, the virtual signature received from the user; populating the virtual check based on the received input and depositing the virtual check. (See Kolchin para 14)
Oakes et al. (US Patent 10,769,598) – discloses remote deposit of checks being facilitated by a financial institution. (See Oakes Abstract) A customer’s general purpose computer and image capture device may be leveraged to capture an image of a check and deliver the image to financial institution electronics and additional data for the transaction may be collected as necessary. (See Oakes Abstract)
Ethington et al. (US Patent 10,552,810) – disclosing methods and systems for remote deposit of financial instruments where the method may include using a mobile device such as a tablet computer or smart phone to automatically review live video data to determine a location of a check in the video image and to obtain a still photo of the check image in response to determining that the mobile device is being held at the desired steadiness. (See Ethington Abstract)
Calman et al. (US Patent 8,811,711) – disclosing methods, apparatus systems and computer program products that provide for using real-time video analysis for recognizing financial document images by capturing a real-time video stream using a mobile device, wherein the video stream features one or more financial documents, analyzing and correlating the images in the real-time video stream to images necessary to process the financial document, providing notice to a user of additional images needed to process the financial document and communicating the information associated with the financial document to a financial institution to complete a transaction once sufficient images of the financial document have been captured to process the financial document. (See Calman Abstract)
Prasad et al. (US Patent 9,779,392) – disclosing a PS platform that provides a negotiable instrument data publish and subscribe framework, whereby financial institutions may exchange negotiable instrument deposit data and/or validation information within the publish and subscribe framework. (See Prasad Abstract) In one embodiment, the platform may implement a remote deposit application on a secured network system, whereby the remote deposit application may obtain, process, and store images of a negotiable instrument and generate virtualized negotiable instruments for deposit. (See Prasad Col. 2, lines 58-68)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered as detailed below.
As to the 112(b) Rejections:
Examiner thanks Applicant for the corrections made to address the previously raised issues, which have been resolved. (See Applicant’s Arguments dated 06/30/2026, page 11)
As to the 112(d) Rejections:
Applicant is thanked for the corrections and claim cancellations made to address the issues. These rejections have also been resolved and withdrawn. (Id. at page 11)
As to the 101 Rejections:
Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s arguments and extensive amendments. (Id. at pages 12-13) The 101 rejection has been updated to reflect the amendments made.
As noted in the rejection in chief, there are some temporal issues that will need to be resolved in order to claim the process in the manner it appears Applicant wishes Examiner to interpret the claims. Applicant is encouraged to actively recite the claim elements and temporal nature of the steps being undertaken in order to show a mismatch in real-time. The 101 rejection is currently being maintained.
As to the 103 Rejections:
Based on the extensive amendments and arguments made, there is currently no prior art rejection being applied. (Id. at pages 14-15)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 September 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights