CTNF 18/932,864 CTNF 74775 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-36 Claims 1-20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,360. See Below: Regarding claims 1-20 18/932,684 (Instant application) 12,154,360 (US Patent) Claims 1, 8 and 15 A method of validating a document, the method comprising: detecting a document within a field of view of a camera of a user device, wherein the document includes a plurality of visual elements including a plurality of marks; receiving a plurality of image frames of the document from the camera of the user device; selecting, based on a selected quality threshold, an image frame from the plurality of image frames; detecting, based on the plurality of marks not being aligned with other visual elements in the image frame, a plurality of invalidating marks; detecting the plurality of invalidating marks forming a predetermined pattern on the document; and determining that the document is invalid based on the detected predetermined pattern. Claims 1, 8 and 19: A method of validating an identification document , the method comprising : detecting , by a processor, the identification document within a field of view of a camera of a user device ; receiving , by the processor, a plurality of image frames of the identification document from the camera of the user device ; analyzing, by the processor, at least one of the plurality of image frames based on one or more predetermined conditions, wherein the one or more predetermined conditions indicate image quality ; determining, by the processor, that the at least one of the plurality of image frames satisfies the one or more predetermined conditions; capturing, by the processor, an image of the identification document in response to determining that the at least one of the plurality of image frames satisfies the one or more predetermined conditions; and determining, by the processor, that the identification document is invalid when there is a predetermined pattern of a plurality of invalidating marks on the identification document. Claims 2, 9 and 16: Wherein the plurality of invalidating marks comprise a plurality of holes in the document Claims 2, 9 and 20: wherein the plurality of invalidating marks comprises a plurality of holes in the identification document Claims 3, 10 and 17: wherein the predetermined pattern is predetermined text. Claims 3, 10 and 21: wherein the predetermined pattern is predetermined text. Claims 4, 12 and 19: wherein the image frame is selected based on at least one of the plurality of image frames including an image of the document being flat against a dark surface and having all edges visible. Claims 6, 13 and 24: whether at least one of the plurality of image frames is flat against a dark surface and has all edges visible. Claims 5 and 13: displaying on the user device a message indicating the document is invalid. Claims 7 and 14: display , by the processor, of a message indicating the identification document is invalid to the user device. Claims 6, 14 and 20: wherein the document is associated with a financial institution. Claim 17: an application resident on the user device that is associated with a financial institution. Claim 7: wherein the document is an identification document Claim 16: wherein the identification document is a driver's license or passport. Claims 11 and 18: wherein the image frame is selected based on at least one of the plurality of image frames including an image of the document being in-focus, such that it is legible. Claims 12 and 23: wherein the one or more predetermined conditions comprises whether at least one of the plurality of image frames is in-focus, such that it is legible. Related Prior Art Arora et al (11,620,057) detecting a document within a field of view of a camera of a user device, wherein the document includes a plurality of visual elements including a plurality of marks (note fig. 3a-3d); Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm. 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-4637. 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. G.D. June 13, 2026 /GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/932,864 Page 2 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/932,864 Page 3 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/932,864 Page 4 Art Unit: 2676
Prosecution Insights