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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the application filed on 01/27/2025.
Claim 1 was previously presented.
Therefore, claim 1 is pending and addressed below.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 of the claimed invention are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,095 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/593,854). Both claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,095 are directed to a system for enabling mobile check deposit auto-capture functionality via video frame processing. Thus, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,095 teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,095 also contains additional limitations not found in claim 1 of the instant application, such as the limitations “…providing instructions to the user for capturing an image of a check”. Accordingly, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,095 is directed to a species of claim 1 of the current application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,095 so that the image checks of claim 1 of the instant application would be processed more quickly and efficiently.
Claim 1 of the claimed invention are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 19/681,057 (filed on 05/18/2026). Both claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 19/681,057 are directed to a system for enabling mobile check deposit auto-capture functionality via video frame processing. Thus, claim 1 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 19/681,057 teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. However, claim 1 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 19/681,057 also contains additional limitations not found in claim 1 of the instant application, such as the limitations “providing instructions to the user for capturing an image of a check” and “the determining including dividing the video frame into segments and analyzing the segments to determine that the video frame satisfies the at least one monitoring criterion”. Accordingly, claim 1 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 19/681,057 is directed to a species of claim 1 of the current application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claim 1 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 19/681,057 so that the image checks of claim 1 of the instant application would be processed more quickly and efficiently.
Claim 1 of the claimed invention are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,632,899 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 19/321,167). Both claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,632,899 are directed to a system for enabling mobile check deposit auto-capture functionality via video frame processing. Thus, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,632,899 teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,632,899 also contains additional limitations not found in claim 1 of the instant application, such as the limitations “providing instructions to the user for capturing an image of a check” and “the determining including dividing the video frame into segments comprising check data and background data and analyzing the segments to determine that the video frame satisfies the at least one monitoring criterion”. Accordingly, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,632,899 is directed to a species of claim 1 of the current application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,632,899 so that the image checks of claim 1 of the instant application would be processed more quickly and efficiently.
Claims 1 of the current application is rejected as unpatentable on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,159,310 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/593,856). Both claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,159,310 are directed to a method and a system for mobile check deposit auto-capture functionality via video frame processing. Thus, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12.159,310 teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,159,310 also contains additional limitations not found in claim 1 of the instant application, such as the limitations “wherein the app, when downloaded and executed by the user's mobile device, is configured to cause the user's mobile device to perform additional operations comprising: before determining that the video frame of the live video of the check satisfies the at least one monitoring criterion, determining that a different video frame of the live video of the check does not satisfy the at least one monitoring criterion; and after determining that the different video frame of the live video of the check does not satisfy the at least one monitoring criterion, providing feedback to the user”. Accordingly, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,159,310 are directed to a species of claim 1 of the current application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12.159,310 so that the image checks of claim 1 of the instant application would be processed more quickly and efficiently.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights