DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in response to the Request for Reconsideration dated December 4, 2025.
2. Claims 1-2, and 5-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Applicant submitted a substitute specification on June 6, 2025. This substitute specification has been accepted.
4. Applicant submitted a replacement drawing for Figure 8 on June 6, 2025. This replacement drawing has been accepted.
5. Claims 3-4 have been canceled.
6. Claims 1, 5-10, 13, and 15-20 have been amended.
7. Claims 21-22 newly added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
8. 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
9. 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:
“based on the comparison of the location data for the deposit check image to the location parameter, determining, by the one or more processors, a confidence score associated with whether the deposit check image is fraudulent.” The use of “whether” indicates optional language as the possibility remains that the deposit check is fraudulent or is not fraudulent. As Applicant does not address what occurs based on “whether” condition, the method may stop (i.e., nothing occurs) or alternatively, that the condition does not occur.
As in Claim 7:
wherein the location data for the deposit check image comprises the image capture location and the location of the remote deposit request based on the deposit check image. Here, the independent claim presents a wherein clause as to the location data for each of the plurality of check images in the second limitation and Claim 7 attempts to create a wherein clause based on another wherein clause. This is not properly further limiting a method claim, this is attempting to recite limitations without actively presenting the method steps.
As in Claim 9:
wherein the location of the deposit request based on the deposit check image comprises a location of the mobile device at a time the user is interacting with a mobile banking app to submit the remote deposit request, the method comprising the mobile banking app obtaining the location of the remote deposit request from a global positioning sensor (GPS) of the mobile device. Here, the wherein clause is based on at a time the user is interacting with a mobile banking app which is not an element disclosed in the independent claim or subsequent claims from which the instant claim depends. Based on the previous recitations, the location of the deposit request has already been utilized, without regard to a mobile banking app. Examiner suggests positively reciting the “obtaining the location of the remote deposit request…”.
As in Claim 11:
wherein the message comprises a request to verify the check depicted in the deposit check image. This limitation expresses the intended use of the message.
As in Claim 22:
“wherein the location of the remote deposit request based on the corresponding one of the plurality of check images and the location of the remote deposit request based on the deposit check image each comprises a location of the mobile device, as determined using a sensor of the mobile device, at a time the user is interacting with a mobile banking application operating on the mobile device to submit one of the remote deposit requests.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 1-2, and 5-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
The manner in which Claims 1 and 20 are recited appear to indicate that a method with no recitation of an element of any type of computer systemization that receives data and appears to indicate that a mobile device, without any particularized software could perform the steps recited - which is not the case. The claims do not include the systemization that would be needed to accomplish the method and CRM claims, respectively as disclosed by the specification. The steps recited would not natively be able to be conducted, rather the steps are enabled by hardware and software, which may include but are not limited to a mobile banking application resident on a client device, a bank or third party server, a network, an API, an ML platform, LLM algorithms, a cloud banking system, centralized or decentralized computing devices, cloud network, an image processing system, system servers, etc. The metes and bounds of the intended invention to be claimed are unclear. Clarification and correction is required.
Dependent Claims 5-18 and 22 are further rejected as dependent on a rejected base claim and also similarly recite steps that are predicated on hardware/software that is not recited in the claims, thus are also indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. Clarification and correction is required.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
The current system of Claim 19 is recited to be performed by at least one processor coupled to the memory that is configured to perform the method steps listed. However, the manner in which the claim is recited appears to indicate that at least one processor coupled to the memory, without the use of any other elements could perform the steps claimed. The steps recited would not natively be able to be conducted, rather the steps are enabled by hardware and software, which may include but are not limited to a mobile banking application resident on a client device, a bank or third party server, a network, an API, an ML platform, LLM algorithms, a cloud banking system, centralized or decentralized computing devices, cloud network, an image processing system, system servers, etc. The metes and bounds of the intended invention to be claimed are unclear. Dependent Claim 21 is further rejected as based on a rejected base claim.
The disclosure does not indicate an embodiment where the claims can operate in the manner claimed by the independent claims with only the use of an ordinary mobile device unmodified by a program, app, etc. In the current claim set, a mobile banking app is not even recited until Claim 9 and even at that juncture, the subsequent claims do not all require a mobile banking app. This issue may rise to a 112(a) if not resolved.
Under a BRI, this may be no more than receiving historical data in the form of check images and a user providing location data for each of the check images. The independent claim already determines a location parameter associated with the user based on the location data of one or more of the plurality of check images, thus Examiner concludes that Applicant is attempting to claim some other feature in Claim 5. The image capture location data appears to refer to some type of metadata associated with the images themselves, however that would only make sense if the metadata of the images was previously captured, which is not required by the independent claim. It is unclear if this is also a 112(d) issue as currently recited. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
In further reference to Claims 5, 6 and 7:
Regarding Claim 5, Applicant recites “wherein the location data for each of the plurality of check images comprises the image capture location.”
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites” wherein the location data for each of the plurality of check images comprises the location of the remote deposit request based on the corresponding one of the plurality of check images.
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant recites “wherein the location data for the deposit check image comprises the image capture location of the deposit check image and the location of the remote deposit request based on the deposit check image.”
As currently amended, Claim 1, from which Claims 5, 6 and 7 depend, recites “obtaining, by the one or more processors, location data for each of the plurality of check images, wherein the location data for each of the plurality of check images comprises at least one of an image capture location or a location of a remote deposit request based on a corresponding one of the plurality of check images”.
The claim recites, in the wherein clause, that the location data for each of the plurality of check images comprises at least one of an image capture location or location of a remote deposit – the method does not require both.
Therefore, in Claims 5, 6 and 7, the respective claims either fails to further limit the claim if the method requires an image capture location (as in Claim 5) or a location of a remote deposit request based on a corresponding one of the plurality of check images (as in Claim 6); may not occur at all if the method defined in Claim 1 only has the other option; or fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. This is confusing and violative of 112(b) as well as 112(d), below. Applicant is requested to clarify the claims to recite the invention sought to be claimed. Examiner suggests reciting that the method requires the location data for the plurality of check images comprises both of an image capture location and a location of a remote deposit request based on a corresponding one of the plurality of check images and canceling Claims 5-6.
Regarding Claim 8, this claim is dependent on Claim 7 and again requires both of the options (obtaining the image capture location or location of a remote deposit request) set forth in the independent claim and discussed above by reciting “comparing, by the one or more processors, the image capture location to the location of the deposit request based on the deposit check image; and based on the image capture location not matching the location of the deposit request based on the deposit check image, determining, by the one or more processors that the deposit check image is fraudulent.” Similar to the issue above, the independent claim does not require both options of the obtaining step to be conducted. While Claim 7, from which this claim directly depends from does require both obtaining options to be fulfilled, both Claims 7 or 8 need to be addressed as well as dependent claim 9, which depends on Claim 8. Claim 9 recites additional details regarding the location of the remote deposit, which, as seen above, may not occur.
Newly presented Claims 21 and 22 present similar issues to those raised with respect to Claims 5-9, above and are similarly rejected for the same basis and reasons.
Examiner again suggests reciting that the method of Claim 1 and the substantially similar Claim 19 requires the location data for the plurality of check images comprises both of an image capture location and a location of a remote deposit request based on a corresponding one of the plurality of check images and canceling Claims 5-6.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
11. Claims 5-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 5, Applicant recites “wherein the location data for each of the plurality of check images comprises the image capture location.”
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites” wherein the location data for each of the plurality of check images comprises the location of the remote deposit request based on the corresponding one of the plurality of check images.
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant recites “wherein the location data for the deposit check image comprises the image capture location of the deposit check image and the location of the remote deposit request based on the deposit check image.”
As currently amended, Claim 1, from which Claims 5, 6 and 7 depend, recites “obtaining, by the one or more processors, location data for each of the plurality of check images, wherein the location data for each of the plurality of check images comprises at least one of an image capture location or a location of a remote deposit request based on a corresponding one of the plurality of check images”.
The claim recites, in the wherein clause, that the location data for each of the plurality of check images comprises at least one of an image capture location or location of a remote deposit – the method does not require both.
Therefore, in Claims 5 and 6, the respective claims either fails to further limit the claim if the method requires an image capture location (as in Claim 5) or a location of a remote deposit request based on a corresponding one of the plurality of check images (as in Claim 6); may not occur at all if the method defined in Claim 1 only has the other option; or fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In Claims 5, 6 and 7, the respective claims either fails to further limit the claim if the method requires an image capture location (as in Claim 5) or a location of a remote deposit request based on a corresponding one of the plurality of check images (as in Claim 6) or both (as in Claim 7); may not occur at all if the method defined in Claim 1 only has the other option; or fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In Claims 8-9, the claims recite further details regarding image capture location and location of the deposit request, which again fail to further limit the claims for the same reasons as disclosed above and are further rejected based a rejected base claim.
Newly presented Claims 21 and 22 present similar issues to those raised with respect to Claims 5-9, above and are similarly rejected for the same basis and reasons.
Dependent Claim 16, which his dependent on Claim 5 and in turn, Claim 1, recites in part:
“wherein the confidence score is further based on the comparison of the deposit visual metadata to the one or more visual metadata parameters.“
Claim 1, from which this claim ultimately depends, recites in part:
“based on the comparison of the location data for the deposit check image to the location parameter, determining, by the one or more processors, a confidence score associated with whether the deposit check image is fraudulent;
based on the confidence score, determining, by the one or more processors, a remote deposit status related to acceptance of the deposit check image”
The independent claim recites that the confidence score is determined based on the comparison of the location data for the deposit check image. The confidence score has already been determined using the location data in Claim 1 and has not been related to a visual parameter in the independent claim. Therefore, the recitation of Claim 16 fails to include the limitations of Claim 1 and/or fails to limit the independent claim. Dependent Claims 17-18 are dependent on a rejected baes claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
12. Claims 1-2 and 5-22 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)
Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations and will be treated as such by exemplary Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of check deposit processing. The idea is described by the following limitations:
receiving a plurality of check images, each of the plurality of check images comprising an image of a check obtained;
obtaining location data for each of the plurality of check images, wherein the location data for each of the plurality of check images comprises at least one of an image capture location or a location of a remote deposit request based on a corresponding one of the plurality of check images;
determining a location parameter associated with the user based on the location data for each of the plurality of check images;
receiving a deposit check image;
obtaining the location data for the deposit check image, wherein the location data for the deposit check image comprises at least one of an image capture location of the deposit check image or a location of a remote deposit request based on the deposit check image;
comparing the location data for the deposit check to the location parameter;
based on the comparison of the location data for the deposit check image to the location parameter, determining a confidence score associated with whether the deposit check image is fraudulent; and
based on the confidence score, determining a remote deposit status related to acceptance of the deposit check image;
providing the remote deposit status in real-time.
Under a BRI, the limitations may reflect no more than a user sending historical check data to be analyzed and outputting the result of the analysis (location parameter). Next, the steps reflect receiving data from a user, obtaining data (perhaps asking the user to disclose a location), comparing the received data to the prior data of the location parameter, determining a confidence score associated with whether the deposit check image is fraudulent (perhaps where the data is compared has a calculation or opinion made to score the confidence of the check image) and providing a status as to the acceptance of the deposit check (which may be nothing more than an accepting or processing designation). Broadly construed, the claims could reflect the process undertaken by bank personnel when determining whether a check is fraudulent before acceptance of said check.
As to certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps involve fundamental economic practices (i.e., deposits); 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 one or more processors; and a mobile device with a display.
Claim 19 recites a memory, at least one processor coupled to the memory, and a mobile device with a display.
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, at least one computing device, a mobile device with a display.
In particular, the claims recite one or more processors, a mobile device with a display, a memory, at least one processor coupled to the memory, a non-transitory computer readable medium and at least one computing device 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 2, 5-18, and 21-22 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 9 further discloses a mobile banking app and notes that the mobile banking app is obtaining the location of the remote deposit request from a GPS sensor of the mobile device. Dependent Claim 12 further discloses the use of OCR. Dependent Claim 14 using OCR to read an amount depicted in the deposit check image and a MICR line depicted in the deposit check image. Dependent Claim 15 further discloses identifying a payer associated with the deposit check using the MICR line. Dependent Claim 16 recites obtaining visual metadata related to at least one of brightness or blue light for each of the plurality of check images and obtaining deposit visual metadata related to at least one of brightness or blue light for the deposit check image and comparing the two. Dependent Claim 18 further discloses determining the deposit visual metadata related to blue light based on pixel data including an RGB, YCBCr code, a HEX color code, a CMYK code, an HSL code or an HSB code. Claim 21 further recites comparing the image capture location to the location of the remote deposit request based on the deposit check image and based on the image capture location not matching the location of the remote deposit request based on the deposit check image, determining the deposit check image is fraudulent. Claim 22 further discloses that the image capture location of each of the plurality of check images and the image capture location of the deposit check image each comprise metadata stored in an electronic image file, and wherein the location of the remote deposit request based on the corresponding one of the plurality of check images and the location of the remote deposit request based on the deposit check image each comprises a location of the mobile device, as determined by a sensor of the mobile device, at a time the user is interacting with a mobile banking application operating on the mobile device to submit one of the remote deposit requests.
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 1-2 and 5-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner Note: Further expansion of the ideas presented in Claims 9 and 22 detailing how the sensor of the mobile device is interacting with the mobile banking application as well as expansion of the details on the use of the location and visual metadata being recited in the independent claims could move the claims closer to subject matter patent eligible matter.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
13. Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al.
(US Patent 9,779,392) (“Prasad”)
Regarding Claim 1, Prasad discloses the following:
A computer-implemented method for a remote deposit environment, comprising:
receiving, at one or more processors, a plurality of check images via a mobile device associated with a user, each of the plurality of check images comprising an image of a check obtained using the mobile device; (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 7, lines 20-52; Col. 12, lines 6-17; Col. 17, lines 27-46; Col. 53, lines 29-38)
obtaining, by the one or more processors, location data for each of the plurality of check images, wherein the location data for each of the plurality of check images comprises at least one of an image capture location or location of a remote deposit request based on a corresponding one of the plurality of check images; (See Prasad Col. 8, lines 24-36; Col. 10, lines 17-26; Col. 18, lines 1-25; Col. 23, line 55-Col. 24, line 3; Col. 29, lines 15-39; Col. 30, lines 38-51 – metadata for received check image/video files such as GPS information, time stamp of image capture, IP address, MAC address, system identifier, and/or the like)
determining, by the one or more processors, a location parameter associated with the user based on the location data for user’s normal geographic region or outside of the user’s normal geographic region determined)
receiving, by the one or more processors, a deposit check image via the mobile device; (See Prasad Col. 3, lines 4-33)
obtaining, by the one or more processors, location data for the deposit check image, wherein the location data for the deposit check image comprises at least one of an image capture location of the deposit check image or a location of a remote deposit request based on the deposit check image; (See Prasad Col. 23, line 55-Col. 24, line 3; Col. 29, lines 15-40)
comparing, by the one or more processors, the location data for the deposit check to the location parameter; (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 29, lines 27-40; Col. 55, lines 14-26)
based on the comparison of the location data for the deposit check image to the location parameter, determining, by one or more processors, a confidence score associated with whether the deposit check image is fraudulent; and (See Prasad Col. 5, line 19-27; Col. 29, lines 15-67 – GPS metadata determined location; weighted risk factors; Col. 30, lines 28-Col. 31, line 11 – risk matrix based on location as one of the weighted risk factors, amounts available may be determined by the PS-Platform utilizing determined risk scores and thresholds)
based on the confidence score, determining, by the one or more processors, a remote deposit status related to acceptance of the deposit check image; and (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 16, lines 14-32; Col. 29, lines 15-67; Col. 30, lines 28-Col. 31, line 11; Col. 48, line 64-Col. 49, line 20; Col. 50, lines 24-34; Col. 12, lines 27-55)
providing, via a display of the mobile device, the remote deposit status in real-time. (See Prasad Col. 12, lines 27-55; Col. 29, lines 15-25; Col. 30, line 38-Col. 31, line 11; Col. 48, line 64-Col. 49, line 20; Col. 50, lines 16-34; Col. 60, lines 29-35; Col. 69, lines 47-67)
While Prasad discloses the invention as noted above and discloses the use of a risk matrix as to weighted risk factors to determine risk scores, it does not squarely disclose a confidence score as claimed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the disclosure of a platform for processing and exchanging financial deposit information where a risk matrix with various risk factors, including location corresponding to risk information is used to determine account limitations, including on deposits, to determine a risk score as disclosed by Prasad by substituting the terminology of a confidence score for the risk score as both terms function in the same manner to determine a remote deposit status related to acceptance of a deposit check image using location information and the simple substitution of the terminology would produce a predictable result which renders the claim obvious.
Regarding Claim 19, this claim recites substantially similar limitations as those described above with reference to Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same reasons and basis as described above as if set forth herein in full. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
A system, comprising:
a memory; and (See Prasad Col. 66, line 54-Col. 67, line 12)
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: (See Prasad Col. 66, line 54-Col. 67, line 12; Col. 5, lines 19-26)
Regarding Claim 20, this claim recites substantially similar limitations as those described above with reference to Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same reasons and basis as described above as if set forth herein in full. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, causes the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising: (See Prasad Col. 66, line 54-Col. 67, line 12; Col. 5, lines 19-26)
Regarding Claim 2, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
identifying, by the one or more processors, from the plurality of check images, one or more check images associated with a common payer; and (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 52, lines 1-60; Col. 53 lines 39-49)
determining, by the one or more processors, the location parameter based on the location data for the one or more check images associated with the common payer such that the location parameter is further associated with the common payer; and (See Col. 5, lines 19-27; Prasad Col. 29, lines 15-39; Col. 52, lines 1-60; Col. 53 lines 39-49)
determining, by the one or more processors, whether the deposit check image is associated with the common payer before comparing the location data for the deposit check image to the location parameter. (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 29, lines 15-39; Col. 52, lines 1-60; Col. 53 lines 39-49)
Regarding Claim 5, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
wherein the location data for each of the plurality of check images comprises the image capture location. (See Prasad Col. 8, lines 24-36; Col. 18, lines 1-25; Col. 23, lines 55-67; Col. 29, lines 15-39 – received check image metadata is analyzed by the PS-Platform and includes GPS information, IP address, MAC address and/or the like, user’s normal geographic region)
Regarding Claim 6, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
wherein the location data for each of the plurality of check images comprises the location of the remote deposit request based on the corresponding one of the plurality of check images. (See Prasad Col. 8, lines 24-36; Col. 18, lines 1-25; Col. 23, lines 55-67; Col. 29, lines 15-39)
Regarding Claim 7, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
wherein the location data for the deposit check image comprises the image capture location of the deposit check image and the location of the remote deposit request based on the deposit check image. (See Prasad Col. 8, lines 24-36; Col. 18, lines 1-25; Col. 23, lines 55-67; Col. 29, lines 15-39)
Regarding Claim 8, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 7 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
further comprising:
comparing, by the one or more processors, the image capture location to the location of the deposit request based on the deposit check image; and (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 8, lines 24-36; Col. 18, lines 1-25; Col. 23, lines 55-Col. 24, line 3; Col. 29, lines 15-67; Col. 30, line 28-Col. 31, line 11; Col. 55, lines 14-26)
based on the image capture location not matching the location of the deposit request based on the deposit check image, determining, by the one or more processors that the deposit check image is fraudulent. (See Prasad Col. 29, lines 15-39; Col. 52, lines 1-57; Col. 53 lines 39-49)
Regarding Claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 8 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
wherein the location of the deposit request based on the deposit check image comprises a location of the mobile device at a time the user is interacting with a mobile banking app to submit the remote deposit request, the method comprising the mobile banking app obtaining the location of the remote deposit request from a global positioning sensor (GPS) of the mobile device. (See Prasad Col. 8, lines 24-36; Col. 18, lines 1-25; Col. 23, lines 55-67; Col. 29, lines 15-39)
Regarding Claim 10, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
further comprising sending, based on the confidence score meeting a predetermined threshold, a message to a payer associated with the deposit check image. (See Prasad Col. 20, lines 1-23; Col. 22, lines 7-56; Col. 53, lines 10-24)
While Prasad discloses the invention as noted above and discloses the use of a risk matrix as to weighted risk factors to determine risk scores, it does not squarely disclose a confidence score as claimed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the disclosure of a platform for processing and exchanging financial deposit information where a risk matrix with various risk factors, including location corresponding to risk information is used to determine account limitations, including on deposits, to determine a risk score as disclosed by Prasad by substituting the terminology of a confidence score for the risk score as both terms function in the same manner to determine a remote deposit status related to acceptance of a deposit check image using location information and the simple substitution of the terminology would produce a predictable result which renders the claim obvious.
Regarding Claim 11, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 10 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
wherein the message comprises a request to verify the check depicted in the deposit check image. (See Prasad Col. 16, lines 47-62); Col. 51, lines 3-7; Col. 53 lines 10-24)
While Prasad discloses the invention as noted above and discloses the use of a risk matrix as to weighted risk factors to determine risk scores, it does not squarely disclose a confidence score as claimed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the disclosure of a platform for processing and exchanging financial deposit information where a risk matrix with various risk factors, including location corresponding to risk information is used to determine account limitations, including on deposits, to determine a risk score as disclosed by Prasad by substituting the terminology of a confidence score for the risk score as both terms function in the same manner to determine a remote deposit status related to acceptance of a deposit check image using location information and the simple substitution of the terminology would produce a predictable result which renders the claim obvious.
Regarding Claim 12, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
further comprising reading, using optical character recognition (OCR), a payee name depicted in the deposit check image. (See Prasad Col. 23, lines 55-67)
Regarding Claim 13, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 12 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
further comprising:
comparing, by the one or more processors, the payer name to a payee name stored in memory of the mobile device or a backend system in communication with the mobile device; and (See Prasad Col. 22, lines 7-56)
based on the payee name not matching the stored payee name, determining, by the one or more processors, that the deposit check image is fraudulent. (See Prasad Col. 22, lines 7-56)
Regarding Claim 14, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 12 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
further comprising reading, using OCR, an amount depicted in the deposit check image and a MICR line depicted in the deposit check image. (See Prasad Col. 23, lines 55-67)
Regarding Claim 15, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 14 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
identifying, by the one or more processors, a payer associated with the deposit check image using the MICR line; (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 23, lines 55-67; Col. 22, lines 7-56)
comparing, by the one or more processors, the payee name and the amount to a list of payee names and corresponding amounts, the list having been communicated by the payer; and (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 22, lines 7-56)
based on the payee name and the amount not matching a payee name and corresponding amount of the list, determining, by the one or more processors, that the deposit check image is fraudulent. (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 22, lines 7-56)
Regarding Claim 16, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 5 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
further comprising:
obtaining, by the one or more processors, visual metadata related to at least one of brightness or blue light for each of the plurality of check images; (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 39, lines 42-67 – luma and RGB)
determining, by the one or more processors, one or more visual metadata parameters associated with the user based on the visual metadata and the image capture location for one or more of the plurality of check images; (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 39, line 42-Col. 40, line 46)
obtaining, by the one or more processors, deposit visual metadata related to at least one of brightness or blue light for the deposit check image; and (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 39, lines 42-67 – luma and RGB)
comparing, by the one or more processors, the deposit visual metadata to the one or more visual metadata parameters; (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 39, line 42-Col. 40, line 46; Col. 41, lines 14-Col. 43, line 67)
wherein the determining the confidence score is further based on the comparison of the deposit visual metadata to the one or more visual metadata parameters. (See Prasad Col. 29, lines 40-67; Col. 30, lines 28-Col. 31, line 11; Col 48, lines 13-20)
While Prasad discloses the invention as noted above and discloses the use of a risk matrix as to weighted risk factors to determine risk scores, it does not squarely disclose a confidence score as claimed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the disclosure of a platform for processing and exchanging financial deposit information where a risk matrix with various risk factors, including location corresponding to risk information is used to determine account limitations, including on deposits, to determine a risk score as disclosed by Prasad by substituting the terminology of a confidence score for the risk score as both terms function in the same manner to determine a remote deposit status related to acceptance of a deposit check image using location information and the simple substitution of the terminology would produce a predictable result which renders the claim obvious.
Regarding Claim 17, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 16 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
wherein determining the one or more visual metadata parameters comprises calculating one or more visual metadata ranges based on the visual metadata and the image capture location for more than one of the plurality of check images, such that the one or more visual metadata ranges represent a mobile deposit visual metadata pattern. (See Prasad Col 43, line 55-Col. 44, line 67; Col. 46, lines 34-48)
Regarding Claim 18, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 16 and to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
further comprising determining, by the one or more processors, the deposit visual metadata related to blue light based on pixel data including an [sic] RGB code, a YCnCr code, a HEX color code, a CMYK code, and HSL code, or an HSB code. (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 39, lines 42-67 – luma and RGB)
Regarding Claim 21, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 19 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
wherein the location data for the deposit check image comprises the image capture location of the deposit check image and the location of the remote deposit request based on the deposit check image, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 8, lines 24-36; Col. 18, lines 1-25; Col. 23, lines 55-67; Col. 29, lines 15-39)
compare the image capture location to the location of the remote deposit request based on the deposit check image; and (See Prasad Col. 5, lines 19-27; Col. 8, lines 24-36; Col. 18, lines 1-25; Col. 23, lines 55-Col. 24, line 3; Col. 29, lines 15-67; Col. 30, line 28-Col. 31, line 11; Col. 55, lines 14-26)
based on the image capture location not matching the location of the remote deposit request based on the deposit check image, determine the deposit check image is fraudulent. (See Prasad Col. 29, lines 15-39; Col. 52, lines 1-57; Col. 53 lines 39-49)
Regarding Claim 22, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Prasad discloses the following:
wherein the image capture location of each of the plurality of check images and the image capture location of the deposit check image each comprises metadata stored in an electronic image file, and (See Prasad Col. 8, lines 24-36; Col. 18, lines 1-25; Col. 23, lines 55-67; Col. 29, lines 15-39 – received check image metadata is analyzed by the PS-Platform and includes GPS information, IP address, MAC address and/or the like; generated message)
wherein the location of the remote deposit request based on the corresponding one of the plurality of check images and the location of the remote deposit request based on the deposit check image each comprises a location of the mobile device, as determined using a sensor of the mobile device, at a time the user is interacting with a mobile banking application operating on the mobile device to submit one of the remote deposit requests. (See Prasad Col. 8, lines 24-36; Col. 18, lines 1-25; Col. 23, lines 55-67; Col. 29, lines 15-39)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered as detailed below.
As to the Claim Interpretation Section:
Examiner notes that Applicant does not concede to the interpretations made. (See Applicant Arguments dated 12/4/2025, pages 9-10) Examiner has updated the section based on Applicant’s amendments and arguments, as seen in the rejection in chief.
As to the 112(b) Rejections:
Examiner thanks Applicant for the correction made to address the antecedent basis issue previously raised. (Id. at page 10)
As to the traversal of Claims 1, 19 and 20 as incomplete for omitting essential steps/structural relationships, Applicant appears to argue that the claims are just broad and points to the specification for the proposition that there are many different embodiments disclosed in the specification and concludes that they do not have to claim a particular configuration of hardware and software. (Id.) The issue is that the specification does not support claiming the remote deposit as occurring utilizing a generic mobile device without something more. While certainly there is a difference between broad language and indefinite language, the line is crossed when the claims are written so broadly as to not have an embodiment that operates without the attendant software and/or hardware as noted in the specification. (Id.) Examiner cannot import the specification into the claims.
As to Claims 5-6 and 7-9, there are additional issues that have been raised as a result of the amendments made, as seen in the rejection in chief. (Id.)
As to Claim 13, Examiner appreciates the amendment made to address the rejection. (Id.)
As to the 112(d) Rejections:
While Examiner appreciates Applicant’s efforts to address the issue, even as amended, the issue remains, as further discussed in the rejection in chief. (Id)
As to the 102 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, are not anticipated by Prasad. (Id. at page 13) In response, Examiner has now presented a one reference 103 rejection to address the concerns and the extensive amendments as seen in the rejection in chief.
Applicant also points to Prasad’s normal geographic region to assert that Prasad only uses a user’s mailing address. (Id.) Examiner disagrees. Prasad also discloses that deposit location is determined by GPS metadata associated with a deposit from a mobile device in Col. 29. The actual location data is determined by GPS location – the distinction of being outside of a user’s normal geographic region appears to be used to determine funds availability, which is not at issue in the claims.
As to the 101 Rejections:
Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s arguments. (Id. at page 13) Applicant alleges that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology by improving the functioning of remote deposit technology by at least determining a location parameter based on a user’s deposit and/or image capture behavior which then is used to assess whether a deposit check image is fraudulent. (Id.) Applicant then argues that the instant application is an improvement over the prior art cited and further argues that the normal geographic region is different than the instant invention. (Id.)
Examiner is of another opinion. The claims do not capture the invention Applicant appears to be attempting to claim that describe an improvement. This argument is not persuasive and the Alice 101 rejection is maintained.
As to the statutory 101 rejection as to the CRM claim 20, Applicant is thanked for the corrections made and this part of the 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 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 March 29, 2026