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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 20, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated February 20, 2026.
2. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 12 and 18-19 have been amended.
4. Claim 20 has been canceled.
5. Claim 21 has been newly added.
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 .
Double Patenting
7. Claims 1-19 and 21 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No.12,260,381 and claim 1-3, 8-11, 15-18 and 21 of copending Application No. 18/503,799. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No.12,260,381. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims both are drawn to processes for a remote deposit by activating a camera on the client device to generate a live stream of image data of a field of view of the camera, wherein the live stream includes data representing a financial document; converting the live stream to a plurality of byte arrays; and extracting from the plurality of byte arrays and by an OCR program resident on the client device, data fields of the financial document.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 8-11, 15-18 and 21 of copending Application No. 18/503,799. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are drawn to processes for activating a camera to capture a live stream of financial instrument or documents that are formed into a plurality of byte arrays that comprises a financial instrument or document.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
8. 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.
As in Claim 1:
activating, by a banking application operating on the client device, as part of a remote financial document deposit process, a camera on the client device to generate a live stream of image data of a field of view of the camera, wherein the live stream includes pixel data representing a physical financial document;
accumulating, at the client device, the OCR extracted data fields until a first subset of the OCR extracted data fields has been accumulated, wherein the first subset includes a first portion of data fields from the physical financial document usable in an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) transaction;
As in Claim 10:
activate, by a banking application operating on a client device, as part of a remote financial document deposit process, a camera on the client device to generate a live stream of image data of a field of view of the camera, wherein the live stream includes pixel data representing a physical financial document;
accumulate the OCR extracted data fields until a first subset of the OCR extracted data fields has been accumulated, wherein the first subset includes a first portion of data fields from the physical financial document usable in an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) transaction;
As in Claim 19:
activating, by the banking application, a camera on the client device to generate a live stream of image data of a field of view of the camera, wherein the live stream includes pixel data representing a physical financial document;
accumulating the OCR extracted data fields until a first subset of the OCR extracted data fields has been accumulated, wherein the first subset includes a first portion of data fields from the physical financial document usable in an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) transaction;
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
9. Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment filed on February 18, 2026 (dated February 13, 2026) is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
As in Claim 1 (and substantially similarly in Claims 10 and 19):
activating, by a banking application operating on the client device, as part of a remote financial document deposit process, a camera on the client device to generate a live stream of image data of a field of view of the camera, wherein the live stream includes pixel data representing a physical financial document;
converting, by the client device, the live stream to a plurality of byte arrays;
extracting, by the client device, from the plurality of byte arrays and by an optical character recognition (OCR) program resident on the client device, without storing the plurality of byte arrays in long-term memory of the client device, a plurality of data fields of the financial document
converting, at the client device based at least in part on the first portion of data fields, the pixel data representing the physical financial document into an EFT transaction
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“Many banks and financial institutions use advanced security features to keep an account safe from fraud during the mobile check deposit workflow. For example, security measures may include encryption and device recognition technology. In addition, remote check deposit apps typically capture check deposit information without storing the check images on the customer’s mobile device (e.g., smartphone). mobile check deposit may also eliminate or reduce typical check fraud as a thief of the check may not be allowed to subsequently make use of an already electronically deposited check, whether it has cleared or not and may provide an alert to the banking institution of a second deposit attempt. In addition, fraud controls may include mobile security alerts, such as mobile security notifications or SMS text alerts, which can assist in uncovering or preventing potentially fraudulent activity.” (See Applicant Spec para 13)
“In some embodiments, after providing at least a subset of OCR extracted data fields to a remote deposit system, the payee may request an EFT payment from the payor’s account using at least a portion of these data fields. For example, the amount, payor, payee, payor account information, to name a few, may be used to configure an EFT to the payee’s account from the payor’s account. In some embodiments, a message will be communicated to the payor requesting acceptance or refusal of the payee’s EFT payment request and a return acknowledgement or denial message to the payee during or subsequent to the remote deposit process. For example, the payee may complete the remote deposit process with an EFT in real-time for a current check or wait for a response to their request for an EFT payment. In some embodiments, if an acceptance is not received, or not received in a selectable time period, the check is remote deposited without an EFT payment.” (See Applicant Spec para 30)
“In one aspect, the camera imagery is video streamed as encoded text, such as a byte array. Alternatively, or in addition to, the video is buffered by storing (e.g., at least temporarily) as images or frames in computer memory. For example, live video streamed from camera 108 is stored locally in image memory 312, such as, but not limited to, a frame buffer, a video buffer, a video streaming buffer, or a virtual buffer.” (See Applicant Spec para 47)
“In a first non-limiting example, by first detecting pixels in a video stream, or image byte array, which contain typed or written image components, with, for example, darker, higher contrast, and common black or blue color values, a confidence score may be calculated based on an overall perceived individual image quality. In some aspects, the confidence score may be predicted by a ML model trained on previous images, assigned confidence scores, and corresponding quality ratings. Alternatively, or in addition to, in one aspect a total pixel score for each image may be calculated. For example, in some aspects, only pixels in a range of pixel values (e.g., range of known marking pixel values, such as 0-50) may be processed, without processing the remaining pixels. For example, those pixels that only include a high pixel value (e.g., lighter pixel grey values), such as, in a background section of the check may not be included in a generated confidence score. In some aspects, pixels that capture preprinted border pixels also may not be considered in the confidence score. In this aspect, the Machine Learning (ML) models may be trained to recognize the values that represent the written or typed information as well as the preprinted borders. For example, using machine learning, thousands or millions of images may be processed to learn to accurately recognize and categorize these pixels.” (See Applicant Spec para 48)
“In one non-limiting example, a series of byte array objects 406 (1-N) are initially formed as sequential sensor frame refresh signals are received. When a client-side EFT generator 412 receives an EFT transaction request from the payee (depositor) during the remote deposit sequence, a EFT data field detector 408 determines if it has data fields to generate an EFT transaction, a pause signal stops the forming of byte array objects until the EFT generation sequence is completed, where a restart signal continues the forming of byte array objects until remaining fields needed for a current remote deposit are completed (e.g., to be used when an EFT is denied by the payor). Alternatively, or in addition to, the remote deposit and EFT transaction sequences may be processed in parallel, with or without pausing the byte array object builds. Alternatively, one of the two processes may be completed first followed by initiation and completion of the second process. For example, the remote deposit process may be completed followed by a configuration of an EFT transaction using data fields extracted during the remote deposit process. In one aspect, the remote deposit process would be cancelled in favor of an accepted EFT transaction. In one aspect, the accepted EFT transaction could be cancelled in favor of a remote deposit process (e.g., if the payor/payee changes their mind “before” the transfer is executed, or if there is a technical error (e.g., communication error). In a hybrid aspect, a first amount may be transferred by EFT and a remaining amount processed by the remote deposit process.” (See Applicant Spec para 70)
“In 602, a mobile banking app 304 initiates a remote deposit by activating a client device 302 camera. For example, a customer using a mobile computing device, operating a mobile banking app, initiates a remote deposit by selecting this option on a UI of the banking mobile app on their mobile computing device. This selection provides instructions to the camera to communicate image data from the field of view of the camera as a raw live video stream 604 of image data 1, 2, 3…X, where X is a number of pixels of image data.” (See Applicant Spec para 85)
“In 606, the raw live image video stream 604, for example, pixels 1, 2, 3…X, is converted to byte array objects 608 (1-N), consistent with previously described byte array objects 406 (1-N). In one aspect, the raw live video stream 604 of image data may be continuously formed into byte array objects until an active OCR process has extracted selected data fields from one side of a check. Alternatively, the raw live video stream 604 of image data may be continuously formed into byte array objects until an active OCR process has extracted all data fields from the imagery of both sides of the check. In some aspects, formed byte array objects that capture preprinted border pixels also may be considered in a pre-processing check orientation determination. In this aspect, the previously discussed ML models may be trained to recognize the values that represent the preprinted borders. For example, using machine learning, thousands or millions of images may be processed to learn to accurately recognize and categorize these pixels.” (See Applicant Spec para 86)
The disclosure of the specification is not as expansive as Applicant is attempting to claim. The specification discloses that the camera communicates image data from a field of view of the camera as a raw live video stream of image data with a number of pixels of image data, however does not go further to disclose the pixel data is representing a financial document. The pixel data is parts of written or typed image components. Further, the conversion is to a plurality of byte array objects as disclosed by the specification, not a plurality of byte arrays.
Additionally, the specification discloses that in an aspect camera imagery is video streamed as encoded text, such as a byte array, however as currently recited, the word imagery has been stricken from the claim limitations. However, here, the data is not disclosed to be converted to a plurality of byte arrays, rather it is streamed as encoded text. Additionally, it appears that the live video streamed from the camera can be stored locally.
While the specification indicates that typically, remote check deposit apps typically capture check information without storing the check images on the customer’s mobile device, the specification does not disclose the negative limitation of “without storing the byte arrays in long-term memory of the client device” The specification also discloses that it is not the pixel data representing the physical financial document that it converted into an ETF transaction, rather, it is formed byte array objects of the data fields that are used to generate an EFT.
Overall, it appears that some of the terminology and recitations have been conflated in the claims. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Relevant Prior Art of Record Not Currently Applied
Voutour et al. (US 10,380,683) (“Voutour”) – discloses apparatuses, methods and systems for a video remote deposit capture platform provides a platform for remote deposit by obtaining images of a check from streaming video captured by video camera, wherein the RDC-Video transforms captured check images and/or entered check deposit information inputs via RDC-Video components into deposit confirmation outputs. (See Voutour Abstract)
Franklin et al. (US PG Pub. 2025/0272666) (“Franklin”) – discloses a computer implemented method, system and non-transitory computer-readable device for a remote deposit environment activating, on a client device, a financial application, wherein the financial application is configured to instantiate a customer interface (UI) on the client device. (See Franklin Abstract) Upon receiving a customer request, based on interactions with the UI, the method implements an electronic deposit of a financial instrument by generating a live stream of image data of a field of view of at least one camera, wherein the live stream of image data includes imagery of at least a portion of the financial instrument, determining, based on the live stream of image data and a machine learning model (ML), and an impermissibility score of a financial instrument. (See Franklin Abstract)
Franklin et al. (US PG Pub. 2025/0156835) (“Franklin”) – discloses a system, apparatus, device, method and/or computer program product embodiments for providing a mid-stream deposit availability schedule to a customer electronically depositing a check. (See Franklin Abstract) The deposit availability schedule is generated by activating a mobile financial application, receiving a customer request to deposit a financial instrument, and based on the customer request, activating a camera on the client mobile device to access a field of view of at least one camera and capture one or more images of a financial instrument, store, in a computer memory on the client mobile device, the one or more images. (See Franklin Abstract) An optical character recognition, resident on the client mobile device, extracts in real-time, one or more data fields from one or more portions of the financial instrument, communicates the one or more data fields to remote deposit server and receives a deposit availability schedule, before acceptance of the remote deposit. (See Franklin Abstract)
Franklin et al. (US PG. Pub. 2025/0117762) (“Franklin”) – discloses a computer implemented method, system and non-transitory computer-readable device for a remote deposit environment. (See Franklin Abstract) Upon receiving a user request, based on interactions with the UI, the method implements an electronic deposit of a financial instrument by activating a camera on the client device to generate a live stream of image data of a field of view of at least a portion of the financial instrument. (See Franklin Abstract) The method continues by extracting in real-time, based on the formation of byte array objects from the live stream of image data, data fields from a ranked sequence of imager to be processed by an optical character recognition program resident on the client device. (See Franklin Abstract)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below.
As to the Claim Objections:
Applicant has amended the claims to resolve the claim objections, which have been accordingly withdrawn. (See Applicant Arguments dated 02/10/2026, page 7)
As to the 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant is thanked for the amendments made that resolved some of the issues raised under 112(b). (Id. at pages 7-9) The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn, however there are some pending 112(a) rejections applied, as noted in the rejection in chief.
As to the 101 Rejections:
There is no 101 rejection being applied at this time. Applicant has amended the claim to additionally recite “without storing the plurality of byte arrays in long-term memory of the client device” and asserts that the claims recite a technical improvement. (Id. at page 9)
The limitation at issue is subject to a 112(a) rejection at the present time. The 101 rejection will be revisited at such time that Applicant resolves the 112 issues that are pending.
As to the Claim Interpretation:
Applicant notes that they do not concede to the Office’s interpretation. (Id. at pages 9-10)
As to the Prior Art Rejections:
There is no prior art being applied at this time. This decision will be revisited after the 112 issues are addressed, especially the “converting” step, which does not appear to have proper support as presented.
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 March 7, 2026