Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
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.
Claim1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12045632. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent anticipates the claim limitation of the instant application by the reference patent.
Instant application
Reference patent (Patent no 12045632)
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by at least one processor from a mobile application executing on a mobile device and for each interaction in a plurality of interactions, at least one image that has been captured on the mobile device and corresponds to an interaction; extracting, by the at least one processor and for each interaction in the plurality of interactions, interaction data from each image; transmitting, by the at least one processor, an application programming interface request that is configured to cause an entity server to process the plurality of interactions to the entity server; and receiving, by the at least one processor, a confirmation from the entity server that the plurality of interactions have been processed by the entity server.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by at least one processor from a mobile application executing on a mobile device and for each interaction in a plurality of interactions, at least one image that has been captured on the mobile device and corresponds to an interaction; extracting, by the at least one processor and for each interaction in the plurality of interactions, interaction data from each image; transmitting, by the at least one processor and for each interaction in the plurality of interactions, a notification to the mobile device indicating that the interaction data has been extracted from the images. receiving, by the at least one processor, a request to transmit the plurality of interactions to an entity server for processing; generating, based on the interaction data and by the at least one processor, an application programming interface request that is configured to cause the entity server to process the plurality of interactions; transmitting, by the at least one processor, the application programming interface request to the entity server; and receiving, by the at least one processor, a confirmation from the entity server that the plurality of interactions have been processed by the entity server.
2-7
2-7
8-14
8-14
15-20
15-20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Shirai [20210297621]
As to claim 1,
Shirai [20210297621] teaches computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor from a mobile application executing on a mobile device and for each interaction in a plurality of interactions, at least one image that has been captured on the mobile device and corresponds to an interaction [0020: “An imaging system can include an imaging apparatus, and a server capable of communicating with the imaging apparatus and executing predetermined image processing in accordance with an execution request. The imaging apparatus can be one of a digital camera, a portable phone with a camera, a smartphone, a tablet terminal, and a personal computer with a camera.”- mobile phone runs application for camera and images are captured through it such that processor processes and 0049: “FIG. 4 shows a procedure in which the processing from step S403 is performed whenever one image is obtained by imaging, but the present invention is not limited to this. For example, it is also possible to use a procedure in which after a plurality of images are generated by continuous imaging and stored in the storage medium 110, the processing from step S403 is executed on each image. ”- each image used for communicating with server is an interaction];
extracting, by the at least one processor and for each interaction in the plurality of interactions, interaction data from each image [0064: “By the processing in step S404 described above, the information indicating recommendation/non-recommendation for the server processing is obtained for each image processing. In step S405, therefore, the CPU 101 checks the value of each flag recorded in the metadata of the target image. If at least one of the aberration correction flag and the NR flag is 1, the CPU 101 transmits an execution request to the server 200. ”];
transmitting, by the at least one processor, an application programming interface request that is configured to cause an entity server to process the plurality of interactions to the entity server [0069: “the server CPU 201 confirms that the server 200 is capable of executing the requested image processing, and transmits an executable response to the digital camera 100 via the server communication circuit 204. As described earlier, in response to the reception of this executable response (step S406), the digital camera 100 transmits a target image and metadata (step S407). In step S704, the server CPU 201 receives (obtains) the target image and the metadata. The received target image and metadata are temporarily stored in the server RAM 203. ”]; and
receiving, by the at least one processor, a confirmation from the entity server that the plurality of interactions has been processed by the entity server [0070: “the server CPU 201 reads out the program of the image processing determined in step S702 from the server ROM 202, loads the program into the server RAM 203, and executes the image processing on the target image stored in the server RAM 203. In step S706, the server CPU 201 temporarily stores the image having undergone the image processing in the server RAM 203. In this step, the server CPU 201 may also store the image having undergone the image processing in the server storage medium 205. Also, the server CPU 201 additionally writes, in the metadata, a history indicating that the server 200 has executed the image processing having the type determined in step S702.” And 0071: “In step S707, the server CPU 201 checks whether the value of the return necessity field of the execution request indicates “return necessary”. If the value of the return necessity field of the execution request is “return necessary”, the server CPU 201 transmits the processed image to the digital camera 100 in step S708. ”]
As to claim 8,
Shirai teaches this claim according to the reasoning set forth in claim 1 supra.
As to claim 15,
Shirai teaches this claim according to the reasoning set forth in claim 1 supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-5,7, 10-12, 14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai [20210297621], in view of Clark [10402790]
As to claim 3,
Shirai teaches processing image
But does not explicitly teach wherein extracting the interaction data from the at least one image comprises: extracting, by the at least one processor, magnetic ink character recognition data from a region of the image.
However, Clark [10402790] teaches extracting the interaction data from the at least one image comprises: extracting, by the at least one processor, magnetic ink character recognition data from a region of the image [col. 5, line 10-13: 25: “The field of view is that part of the world that is visible through the camera at a particular position and orientation in space; objects outside the field of view when the image is captured are not recorded in the image. The monitoring criteria may be based on one or more of light contrast on the image, light brightness of the image, positioning of the image, dimensions, tolerances, character spacing, skewing, warping, corner detection, and MICR (magnetic ink character recognition) line detection, as described further herein”]
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Shirai with Clarke because both are directed toward image processed by the server. Clarke improves upon Shirai by being able to extract information from the image such that that the corresponding task with identifying information can be been used to process image without any error.
As to claim 4,
Clark teaches receiving the confirmation from the entity server that the plurality of interactions have been processed by the entity server further comprises receiving a plurality of interaction identifiers corresponding to the plurality of interactions, wherein each interaction identifier corresponds to a processed interaction [col. 6, lines 26-30: “In examples, where the document type is identified, the camera, the mobile device 106, and/or a financial institution can analyze the document according to standardized and/or common features of the document type. For example, after identifying the document type, the camera, the mobile device 106, and/or a financial institution can be directed to certain relevant information of the document according to standardized or common locations of such information on such a document. ” and 66: “With respect to number and character recognition, commercial check scanners have used characteristics of the MICR encoding to detect information about the check, such as the bank's routing number and the account number. ”].
As to claim 5,
Clark teaches generating the application programming interface request further comprises: generating, for each interaction, at least one file from the at least one image, wherein the at least one file includes: a front-facing image of a document that corresponds to the interaction and has been scanned by the mobile device; a rear-facing image of the document that corresponds to the interaction and that has been scanned by the mobile device; and metadata associated with the interaction [63: “The software object may cause the camera 207 to analyze an image in the field of view with respect to monitoring criteria, provide feedback, and/or take a picture or capture one or a plurality of images of the check 108 being deposited. These images may be captured sequentially, e.g., pursuant to the user 102 flipping the check 108 over after an image of the front of the check 108 has been captured after passing the monitoring criteria. However, each side of the check 108 may be captured by the camera 207 using similar API calls. The images may be stored in an image file(s) 315 ” and 65: “(65) Once the images file(s) have been combined, the composite image file(s) may be operated on by the software object of the client 320. These operations may include any of the following: deskewing, dewarping, magnetic ink character recognition, cropping (either automatically, or having the user 102 manually identify the corners and/or edges of the check 108 for example), reducing the resolution of the image, number detection, character recognition, and the like. ”- monitoring criteria data associated with check is equivalent to metadata].
As to claim 7,
Clark teaches comprising: generating, by the at least one processor and for each interaction in the plurality of interactions, a record associated with the interaction that is configured to associate the interaction with a user account corresponding to a user of the mobile device [col. 5, lines 50-55: “System 100 may include an account owner, referred to herein as a user 102, and financial institutions 130, 140, and 150, which may be any type of entity capable of processing a transaction involving a document. For example, financial institutions 130, 140, and 150 may be a retail bank, an investment bank, an investment company, a regional branch of the Federal Reserve, a clearinghouse bank, and/or a correspondent bank.” And col. 13 line 60-65: “With respect to number and character recognition, commercial check scanners have used characteristics of the MICR encoding to detect information about the check, such as the bank's routing number and the account number.”]
As to claim 10-12,
Shirai and Clark teach this claim according to the reasoning set forth in claim 3-5supra.
As to claim 14,
Shirai and Clark teach this claim according to the reasoning set forth in claim 7 supra.
As to claim 17-19,
Shirai and Clark teach this claim according to the reasoning set forth in claim 3-5supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KESHAB R PANDEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00(ET).
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571) 270-1640. 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.
/KESHAB R PANDEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176