DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/24/25 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/24/25 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Amended claim 1 recites “wherein each of the plurality of images of the check has a majority of its pixel values in common with other images of the plurality of images”. These limitations lack support in the specification. The relevant description in the specification is disclosed in para. [0073] (PGPub): “For example, a first frame may capture most of a check, but may not be framed “on-center” and therefore miss capturing pixels from a lower corner. A second frame may capture this missing lower corner and be used in a blended build to collectively capture all pixels of a check”. The specification does not disclose the limitations listed above. Further the specification discloses “common pixels”. The common pixels refer to spatially overlapped pixels. It does not mean pixel values are common. Instead because of various reasons, such as lighting issues, shading, reflections, or obstructions, pixel values of common pixels may not be ideal and blending is necessary to improve image quality (para. [0073]).
Independent claims 8 and 15 have similar issue.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Publication 2022/0358575 A1), in view of Zaitsev et al. (US Publication 20180122080 A1, hereafter Zaitsev).
As per claim 1, Smith teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a computer-implemented method (Abstract) for remote deposit using a client device, comprising:
receiving, from a camera of the client device, a plurality of images of a check captured from a live image stream of a field of view of the camera including at least one of a customer account number or a bank routing number (para. [0018] “The video display screen, in the phone's camera mode, displays a rapid series of images reproducing the images that are within the field of view of the camera”; Claim 1 “monitor relative to a plurality of image criteria each composite image presented by each video frame of a series of video frames passing within a field of view of a camera of a mobile device operated by a user”; FIG. 2 depicts a sample video display screen with viewfinder at the beginning of an image capture process. The instructions displayed on the screen instruct the user to align the image capturing device with the check so that the images are captured within the field of view of the camera (see para. [0021]); FIG. 3-4 shows captured check images, which include at least one of a customer account number or a bank routing number);
generating a composite image (para. [0018] “The video display screen, in the phone's camera mode, displays a rapid series of images reproducing the images that are within the field of view of the camera. The video images are a series of composite images 130 of all that is within the camera's field of view at any given moment”; claim 1 “monitor relative to a plurality of image criteria each composite image presented by each video frame of a series of video frames passing within a field of view of a camera of a mobile device operated by a user, wherein each a composite image comprises a single foreground image and a single background image within a single video frame within the field of view of the camera of a mobile device operated by a user”); and
transmitting the composite image to a remote server system (para. [0039], [0045], [0048]).
Smith however, does not teach:
wherein each of the plurality of images of the check has a majority of its pixel values in common with other images of the plurality of images;
selecting a set of images from the plurality of images of the check, wherein a first image of the selected set of images does not include a portion of the check and a second and third image of the selected set of images includes the portion of the check;
determining common pixels between images in the set of images taken from the field of view including at least one of the customer account number or the bank routing number, wherein common pixels are pixels that appear in at least two images of the check from the selected set of images;
averaging, based on one or more color values, the common pixels for each of the images of the set of images; and
generating, based on the averaged common pixel values for each of the common pixels, a blended image of the check, wherein the blended image is an aggregation of the averaged common pixel values.
Zaitsev discloses a method for reducing storage using commonalities. Specifically, one or more features that are common among each of a plurality of images is determined, and one or more background images are generated based on the one or more common features (Abstract). The method includes:
selecting a set of images from a plurality of images of a background, wherein a first image of the selected set of images does not include a portion of the background and a second and third image of the selected set of images includes the portion of the background (para. [0054] “In some embodiments, the feature module 202 selects images that are taken within a predefined time period of one another based on timestamps stored in metadata of each image … It may be likely that images that are taken within a short period of time of one another will share common features because the images were probably taken at the same location and do not have much movement between each image, e.g., such as a set of images taken in a “burst mode” image capture mode”);
wherein each of the plurality of images of the background has a majority of its pixel in common with other images of the plurality of images (para. [0058] “In some embodiments, there may be minor differences between pixel values for the common features depicted in each of the plurality of images. For example, a set of images taken in “burst mode” may be slightly different due to slight movements of the camera”);
determining common pixels between images in the set of images, wherein common pixels are pixels that appear in at least two images of the check from the selected set of images (para. [0051] “The feature module 202, in one embodiment, determines one or more features that are common between each image of a plurality of images. The plurality of images may be different still images, different frames of a video, and/or the like. The common features may include background items, such as scenery (e.g., mountains, trees, and/or the like), monuments, landmarks, buildings, statues, faces, people, clothing, hair, pets, and/or the like. The feature module 202 determines features among a plurality of different images that are common to each image using image processing methods and techniques, such as edge detection, facial recognition, pattern matching, and/or the like”);
averaging, based on one or more color values, the common pixels for each of the images of the set of images (para. [0058] “In such an embodiment, the background module 204 may use an average, a median, a mode, or the like, of the pixel values that represent the common features in each of the plurality of images for the pixel values of the pixels depicting the common features in the generated background image(s)”); and
generating, based on the averaged common pixel values for each of the common pixels, a blended image of the background, wherein the blended image is an aggregation of the averaged common pixel values (para. [0056] “The background module 204, in one embodiment, generates one or more background images based on the one or more common features”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the teaching of Zaitsev with the teaching of Smith to consider generating a blended image in a manner as recited. By taking the above steps, a composite image with common features is generated from a plurality of images and the storage is reduced by avoiding storing the plurality of images (Zaitsev para. [0043]).
As per claim 2, dependent upon claim 1, Smith in view of Zaitsev further teaches converting the blended image to a bi-tonal image before transmitting the blended image to the remote server system (Smith para. [0038] “The image may be shown in color or as a black and white or grayscale version of the image”).
As per claim 5, dependent upon claim 1, Smith in view of Zaitsev further teaches, for each of the images in the set of images, recognizing pixels located within a boundary of the check (Smith FIG. 4; Zaitsev para. [0051] “The feature module 202, in one embodiment, determines one or more features that are common between each image of a plurality of images … The feature module 202 determines features among a plurality of different images that are common to each image using image processing methods and techniques, such as edge detection, facial recognition, pattern matching, and/or the like”).
As per claim 6, dependent upon claim 5, Smith in view of Zaitsev teaches the averaging further comprises averaging the common pixels located within the boundary of the check (Zaitsev para. [0058] “In such an embodiment, the background module 204 may use an average, a median, a mode, or the like, of the pixel values that represent the common features in each of the plurality of images for the pixel values of the pixels depicting the common features in the generated background image(s)”).
Claim 8, an independent system claim, Smith in view of Zaitsev teaches a system for performing the method of claim 1, the system comprising a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Smith claims 1 and 12; See also rejections applied to claim 1).
Claim 9, dependent upon claim 8, is rejected as applied to claim 2 above.
Claim 12, dependent upon claim 8, is rejected as applied to claim 5 above.
Claim 13, dependent upon claim 12, is rejected as applied to claim 6 above.
Claim 15, an independent claim, Smith in view of Zaitsev teaches a non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, causes the at least one computing device to perform the method of claim 1 (Smith claims 1 and 12; see also rejections applied to claim 1).
Claim 17, dependent upon claim 15, is rejected as applied to claim 2 above.
Claim 19, dependent upon claim 15, is rejected as applied to claim 5 above.
Claim 20, dependent upon claim 19, is rejected as applied to claim 6 above.
Claims 3, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Zaitsev, as applied above to claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, and further in view of Stimm et al. (US Publication 2023/0109047 A1, hereafter Stimm).
As per claim 3, Smith in view of Zaitsev does not teach the recited limitations.
Stimm discloses a method for a camera to capture, encode, and stream a live capture to a user's smart phone for immediate playback (para. [0127]). Note encoded video forms a byte array.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the teachings of Stimm with Smith and Zaitsev to consider obtaining a plurality of images from a stream of live camera imagery in a form of a byte array. Encoding a live stream of video can reduce the size of the content to be transmitted and therefore improves image processing efficiency (Stimm para. [0127]).
Claim 10, dependent upon claim 8, is rejected as applied to claim 3 above.
Claim 16, dependent upon claim 15, is rejected as applied to claim 3 above.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Zaitsev, as applied above to claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, and further in view of Wong (US Publication 2022/0223017 A1).
As per claim 4, Smith in view of Zaitsev teaches selecting a set of images (See rejections applied to claim 1), but does not teach the frame buffer as recited.
Wong teaches a camera for recording a plurality of image frames corresponding to the field of view. Wong further teaches storing the plurality of image frames in a frame buffer (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to have modified the teachings of Smith and Zaitsev to incorporate the teaching of Wong to include a frame buffer for storing the selected set of images. Doing so would allow image capturing, buffering and streaming to be performed in an efficient manner (Wong para. [0004], [0024]).
Claim 11, dependent upon claim 8, is rejected as applied to claim 4 above.
Claim 18, dependent upon claim 15, is rejected as applied to claim 4 above.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Zaitsev, as applied above to claims 1 and 8 respectively, and further in view of Backlund et al. (US Patent 11,676,285 B1, hereafter Backlund).
As per claim 7, Smith in view of Zaitsev does not teach the recited limitations.
Backlund discloses a method for replacing a background of a captured image of a check (Abstract). Backlund specifically teaches a blur detection process applied to a predetermined number of frames. The predetermined number of frames may be set by a specific number of frames, or by analyzing frames for a predetermined amount of time, where the image processing engine 120 may determine a number of frames per second the image capture device 115 and the image processing engine 120 are able to process, i.e., determining an optimal number of frames to be processed (col. 16 ln 62-67). During the image processing test, the image processing circuitry 128 tests a number of frames the image capture device 115 and/or the image processing engine 120 are able to process for a given amount of time (e.g., rate of frames/second). The test results may determine a rate (frames/second) at which the image capture device 115 and/or the image processing engine 120 are able to process frames of check images that are within the field of view of the image capture device 115 during an image focusing process (col. 17 ln 11-19). This test process is a machine learning process. Based on the determination, the image processing engine 120 may set a predetermine length of time to analyze frames of images within the field of view of the image capture device 115 for blur detection. For example, the blur detection may consider 0.5 s worth of frames, and select the clearest frame during this period to capture as the check image for further processing (col. 17 ln 20-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to have modified the teachings of Smith and Zaitsev to incorporate the teaching of Backlund to determine an optimized number of image frames based on a trained machine learning model. Do so would allow the capacity of the image capture device and the image processing engine to be considered (Backlund col. 16 ln 67-col. 17 ln 7).
Claim 14, dependent upon claim 8, is rejected as applied to claim 7 above.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI G CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661