DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 01/03/2025 and the Amendment and Remark filed on 03/18/2026.
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 .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “the best matching” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quickly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Status of Claims
Claims 3, 5, 7 and 8 are canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 are amended.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the Amendment filed on 03/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to a method, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising using at least one hardware processor to:
receive an incoming check image associated with an account;
for each of one or more profile check images stored in a Check Identity Record (CIR) associated with the account,
for each of a plurality of detectors,
extract one of a plurality of features, that is associated with the detector, from the incoming check image;
compare the extracted feature with a corresponding feature associated with the profile check images stored in a CIR;
determine a local fraud score for the detector based on the comparison;
determine a global fraud score for the profile check image based on the local fraud scores for the plurality of detectors;
determine a best matching one of the one or more profile check image s based on the global fraud score for each of the one or more profile check images;
when the global fraud score for the best matching profile check image satisfies a threshold, generate and display a graphic user interface that comprises an overlay of the incoming check image over the best matching profile check image, where at least one of the plurality of features, that is associated with one of the plurality of detectors for which a highest local fraud score was determined for the best matching profile check image, is highlighted within the overlay of the incoming check image and
wherein the graphic user interface further comprises a first input, when selected by a user, approves a deposit of the incoming check image, and a second input that, when selected by the user, declines a deposit of the incoming check image.
Claim 2 recites:
wherein the graphic user interface further comprises a third input that, when selected by the user, escalates review of the incoming check image.
Claim 4 recites:
wherein the graphic user interface further comprises one or more business alerts associated with the account in a same screen as the overlay of the incoming check image.
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the graphic user interface further comprises that global fraud score for the best matching profile check image, a channel on which the incoming check image was received, and a number of the one or more profile check images in the CIR.
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers check authentication. Check authentication manages legal contractual relationship and is considered to be a commercial interaction, which falls within the “Certain Methods or Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “processor” as a mere tool to perform the steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, the limitation “receive an incoming check image associated with an account” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the incoming check image associated with an account;
the limitation “for each of one or more profile check images stored in a Check Identity Record (CIR) associated with the account, for each of a plurality of detectors, extract one of a plurality of features, that is associated with the detector, from the incoming check image” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of extracting features from the incoming check;
the limitation “for each of one or more profile check images stored in a Check Identity Record (CIR) associated with the account, for each of a plurality of detectors … compare the extracted feature with a corresponding feature associated with the profile check images stored in a CIR” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of comparing the features with corresponding associated with profile check images stored;
the limitation “for each of one or more profile check images stored in a Check Identity Record (CIR) associated with the account, for each of a plurality of detectors … determine a local fraud score for the detector based on the comparison” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining, for each of the detectors, a local fraud score based on the comparison;
the limitation “for each of one or more profile check images stored in a Check Identity Record (CIR) associated with the account … determine a global fraud score for the profile check image based on the local fraud scores for the plurality of detectors” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining, for each of the profile check images, a global fraud score based on the local fraud scores for the plurality of detectors;
the limitation “determine a best matching one of the one or more profile check images based on the global fraud score for each of the one or more profile check images” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of determining a best matching profile check image based on the global fraud scores;
the limitation “when the global fraud score for the best matching profile check image satisfies a threshold, generate and display a graphic user interface that comprises an overlay of the incoming check image over the best matching profile check image, where at least one of the plurality of features, that is associated with one of the plurality of detectors for which a highest local fraud score was determined for the best matching profile check image, is highlighted within the overlay of the incoming check image” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of presenting the incoming check image with an overlay of the best matching profile check image and highlight of the feature with the highest local fraud score;
the limitation “wherein the graphic user interface further comprises a first input, when selected by a user, approves a deposit of the incoming check image, and a second input that, when selected by the user, declines a deposit of the incoming check image” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of providing options to a user to select whether to approve or decline a deposit of the incoming check image;
the limitation “wherein the graphic user interface further comprises a third input that, when selected by the user, escalates the review of the incoming check image” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of allowing a user to escalate review of the incoming check image;
the limitation “wherein the graphic user interface further comprises one or more business alerts associated with the account in a same screen as the overlay of the incoming check image” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of presenting business alerts along with the incoming check image;
the limitation “wherein the graphic user interface further comprises that global fraud score for the best matching profile check image, a channel on which the incoming check image was received, and a number of the one or more profile check images in the CIR” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor to apply the Judicial Exception step of presenting a global score for the best matching profile check image, the channel on which the incoming check image was received and the number of profile check images in the CIR;
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically.
The additional element(s) of “memory” and/or “non-transitory storage medium” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception.
The additional element(s) of “display a graphic user interface that comprises an overlay of image”, “highlighted within the overlay”, “the graphical user interface further comprises a first / second/ third input, when selected by a user”, “in a same screen as the loverlay” are generically recited to perform input/output steps described only by a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how the interface accomplish it. The involvement of the user interface is found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer.
Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to conduct check authentication amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The previous rejection under 35 USC 102 is withdrawn in view of the Amendment filed on 03/18/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the claims are directed to eligible subject matter similar to that Core Wireless and Trading Tech., the examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, the applicant argued that the present claims are directed to an improved graphical user interface that overlays the incoming check image over the best matching profile check image and highlighting feature based on corresponding fraud scores. However, the examiner noted that practice of overlaying images and highlighting noteworthy features are not specifically tied to graphical user interface. Overlaying a semi-transparent template, e.g. on a projector, over another image and circling differences or similarity goes back before the time of computer user interface. In fact, the overlaying of check image and profile image and highlighting of features are aspects of the cited Judicial Exception of check authentication. It should be noted that generically invoking a graphical user interface to conduct the image overlaying step and feature highlighting step of the Judicial Exception without specific technological detail amounts to no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception. The mere usage of the GUI in applying the Judicial Exception cannot improve technology of GUI similar to how calculating an improved mathematical equation on calculator would not improve the technology of calculator. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F.
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, MICHAEL W ANDERSON can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights