Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/883,689

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VISUAL VERIFICATION

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Sep 12, 2024
Priority
Nov 26, 2018 — continuation of 10/475,038 +3 more
Examiner
ALAVI, AMIR
Art Unit
2668
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Capital One Services LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
94%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 94% — above average
94%
Career Allowance Rate
1094 granted / 1168 resolved
+31.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
1189
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§103
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§102
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§112
6.1%
-33.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1168 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,100,257. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim limitations of the instant invention are anticipated by the aforementioned US Patent. In the case of anticipation, there need not be any motivational analysis, since, the claim limitations of the instant invention are encompassed by the above-mentioned US Patent. In other words, the underlined limitations, that are the common limitations between the Instant invention and the issued Patent being similar, and are thought to be novel, however, the only difference being the section in the issued patent which is not underlined and it would not deviate the novelty of the invention. Below, a tabular comparison, is indicative of such inclusion: Application 18/883,689 US Patent 12,100,257 1. A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory having stored thereon computer program code that, when executed by the one or more processors, instructs the one or more processors to: receive one or more first images of a document at first capture conditions; receive one or more second images of the document at second capture conditions; identify a first feature of the document within the one or more second images, the first feature having one or more visual characteristics that differ between the one or more first images and the one or more second images; determine whether the one or more visual characteristics of the first feature correspond to one or more expected visual characteristics; and responsive to determining that the one or more visual characteristics of the first feature correspond to the one or more expected visual characteristics, transmit an indication of acceptance of the document. 1. A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory having stored thereon computer program code that, when executed by the one or more processors, instructs the one or more processors to: receive a first plurality of images of a document at a first set of capture conditions; analyze the first plurality of images of the document at the first set of capture conditions; adjust from the first set of capture conditions to a second set of capture conditions for a second plurality of images based on the analysis of the first plurality of images; receive the second plurality of images of the document at the second set of capture conditions; identify a first feature of the document visible within at least one of the second plurality of images, the first feature having visual characteristics that differ between at least one of the first plurality of images and the at least one of the second plurality of images; and output, in response to comparing respective visual characteristics of the first feature of the document in the at least one of the second plurality of images to corresponding expected visual characteristics of the first feature of the document, an indication of acceptance of the document. Regarding claims 2-20, similar analysis as those presented for claims 2-20, of the aforementioned US Patent, are applicable. Prior Art of record The Prior Art which are pertinent to Applicant’s invention but were not relied upon: Vorobiev et al. (USPAP 2021/0064,900), shows a similar system, in which, receiving a first plurality of images of a document at a first set of capture conditions and analyzing the first plurality of images of the document at the first set of capture conditions (Please note, paragraph 0007. As indicated a method of capturing a plurality of images using the camera and analyzing the captured images by recognizing images of the plurality of images as images of an identification document, computing the angle of the camera relative to the identification document for the recognized images of the plurality of images, identifying at least one security feature of the identification document based on the recognized images taken at multiple angles, and verifying validity of the at least one security feature based on the recognized images taken at multiple angles). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ALAVI whose telephone number is (571)272-7386. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:00-4:30. 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, Vu Le can be reached at (571)272-7332. 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. /AMIR ALAVI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 Tuesday, June 16, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 12, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678115
METHOD FOR GENERATING A VOLUME MODEL OF AN OBJECT UNDER EXAMINATION, CONTROL DEVICE, X-RAY APPARATUS, COMPUTER PROGRAM, AND ELECTRONICALLY READABLE DATA MEDIUM
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12664770
METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH IMAGE RESTORATION
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12664692
IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE AND METHOD
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12657686
LINE DEFECT DETECTION
2y 3m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12646290
POLYNOMIAL SELF-ATTENTION
2y 9m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
94%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+3.6%)
2y 3m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1168 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month