DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 19/195,989, was filed on 07/16/2025, which is a Continuation of 17/954,181, filed on 09/27/2022, which is a Continuation of 16/822,615, filed on 03/18/2020, which is a Divisional of 13/752,010, filed on 01/28/2013, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application 61/591,707, filed on 01/27/2012.
The effective filing date is after the AIA date of March 16, 2013, and so the application is being examined under the “first inventor to file” provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 07/14/2025.
Claims 2-21 are pending, of which claims 2 and 12 are independent.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2025 has been considered.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”.
Based on the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
In regards to Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, independent claim 2 is a method claim, and claim 12 is an apparatus claim.
For the sake of compact prosecution, we continue with the Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” analysis.
Step 2A, prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?”
In regards to Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the abstract idea elements recited in independent claim 12 are shown in italic font. (The “additional elements” and “extra solution steps” are shown in italic and underlined font):
In regards to claim 12,
12. (New) An issuer computer comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising:
receiving, from a transaction processing server, a unique personal account identifier associated with a user;
identifying a plurality of user accounts associated with the user based on the unique personal account identifier;
providing, to the transaction processing server, a list of the plurality of user accounts associated with the user;
receiving, from the transaction processing server, a remote deposit transaction request message in an issuer-compatible format, wherein the remote deposit transaction request message includes check data retrieved from a captured image of a check, a user account identifier for a selected user account among the plurality of user accounts, and a unique processing code that denotes remote deposit,
wherein the transaction processing server receives the remote deposit transaction request message in a first format including a selected user account, a captured image of a check, and an image capture element verifying an image quality of the captured image, wherein the image capture element includes a verification status of the captured image,
wherein the transaction processing server generates the remote deposit transaction request message in the issuer-compatible format based on the remote deposit transaction request message in the first format
processing in real-time the remote deposit transaction request message using the selected user account based on at least the check data; and
transmitting, to the transaction processing server, an authorization response message indicating that a remote deposit transaction associated with the remote deposit transaction request message has been approved or declined in real-time.
More specifically, claims 2-21 recite an abstract idea: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", specifically “Commercial or Legal Interactions (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”, as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “Commercial or Legal Interactions” elements include:
“identifying a plurality of user accounts associated with the user based on the unique personal account identifier”.
“processing in real-time the remote deposit transaction request message using the selected user account based on at least the check data”.
The “additional elements” include: “one or more processors” and “a memory coupled with the one or more processors”.
Moreover, “additional extra-solution elements” include: “wherein the memory stores instructions”, “receiving, from a transaction processing server, a unique personal account identifier associated with a user”, “providing, to the transaction processing server, a list of the plurality of user accounts associated with the user”, “receiving, from the transaction processing server, a remote deposit transaction request message in an issuer-compatible format”, “wherein the transaction processing server receives the remote deposit transaction request message in a first format”, “wherein the transaction processing server generates the remote deposit transaction request message in the issuer-compatible format based on the remote deposit transaction request message in the first format”, and “transmitting, to the transaction processing server, an authorization response message indicating that a remote deposit transaction associated with the remote deposit transaction request message has been approved or declined in real-time”.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
In regards to Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The generically recited computer elements (“one or more processors” and “a memory coupled with the one or more processors”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The extra-solution activities (“wherein the memory stores instructions”, “receiving … a unique personal account identifier associated with a user”, “providing … a list of the plurality of user accounts associated with the user”, “receiving … a remote deposit transaction request message in an issuer-compatible format”, “wherein the transaction processing server receives the remote deposit transaction request message in a first format”, “wherein the transaction processing server generates the remote deposit transaction request message in the issuer-compatible format”, and “transmitting … an authorization response message indicating that a remote deposit transaction associated with the remote deposit transaction request message has been approved or declined in real-time”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, as they are insignificant extra-solution activity;
The combination of the abstract idea with the additional elements (generically recited computer elements), and/or with the extra-solution activities, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
In regards to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because:
When considering the elements "alone and in combination" (“one or more processors” and “a memory coupled with the one or more processors”), they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Instead, they merely add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In regards to the extra solution activities (“wherein the memory stores instructions”, “receiving … a unique personal account identifier associated with a user”, “providing … a list of the plurality of user accounts associated with the user”, “receiving … a remote deposit transaction request message in an issuer-compatible format”, “wherein the transaction processing server receives the remote deposit transaction request message in a first format”, “wherein the transaction processing server generates the remote deposit transaction request message in the issuer-compatible format”, and “transmitting … an authorization response message indicating that a remote deposit transaction associated with the remote deposit transaction request message has been approved or declined in real-time”), these are recognized as such by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the “wherein the memory stores instructions” step, see the court cases Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory).
More specifically, in regards to the “receiving”, “transmitting”, and “providing, to the transaction processing server, a list of the plurality of user accounts associated with the user” steps, see the court cases OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and (presenting offers and gathering statistics), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Moreover, in regards to “apply it”, according to MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2):
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Examiner holds that the independent claims “use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” or “simply add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”.
Independent claim 2 is rejected on the same grounds as independent claim 12.
All dependent claims are also rejected, because they merely further define the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US-8,688,579-B1 to Ethington et al. (“Ethington”. Eff. Filed on June 8, 2011).
In regards to claim 1, it has been cancelled.
In regards to claim 2,
2. (New) A method comprising:
receiving, by an issuer computer from a transaction processing server, a unique personal account identifier associated with a user;
(See Ethington: “Within implementations, upon receiving a user request to deposit, MultiCrop may prompt a user to provide user credentials to instantiate a remote deposit, e.g., a user account name, password, and/or the like. Upon user login, the MultiCrop may provide instructions via a user interface for the user to deposit one or more checks. For example, FIG. 3A shows an example screen shot illustrating a user interface of the MultiCrop. As shown in FIG. 3A, the MultiCrop may provide instructions 3A-42 to request the user to endorse the back of the check(s) to be deposited, place the checks on the scanner to scan one side of the check, select the scanner, and click the button for the number of checks placed on the scanner, etc.”)
identifying, by the issuer computer, a plurality of user accounts associated with the user based on the unique personal account identifier;
providing, by the issuer computer to the transaction processing server, a list of the plurality of user accounts associated with the user;
(See Ethington: “In one implementation, the MultiCrop may provide a view including the cropped front sides and back sides of the check images, as the illustrated list of front side images 3D-54, and the list of back side images 3D-55 in FIG. 3D. The MultiCrop may then receive a user indication of deposit accounts 2B-53. For example, the user may select a deposit account from a list of accounts associated with the MultiCrop remote deposit account, as shown at 3E-58 in FIG. 3E.”)
receiving, by the issuer computer from the transaction processing server, a remote deposit transaction request message in an issuer-compatible format, wherein the remote deposit transaction request message includes check data retrieved from a captured image of a check, a user account identifier for a selected user account among the plurality of user accounts, and a unique processing code that denotes remote deposit,
(See Ethington: “In another example implementation, a user may deposit cash or a check at a third party agent which is located remotely from a bank. For example, the third party agent may include, but is not limited to a point of sale at a store participating in the RDC service, a RDC terminal located at a gas station, and/or the like. In another implementation, the third party agent may be an express mailing service representative carrying a portable check/cash reading device to provide RDC service, e.g., UPS.RTM., Fedex.RTM., etc. In one implementation, the user may walk in a RDC participating store and present a check or cash for deposit. The third party agent may process the remote deposit request by generating and sending an image of the check to a remote deposit server, or by calculating and verifying the presented cash for deposit.”)
wherein the transaction processing server receives the remote deposit transaction request message in a first format including a selected user account, a captured image of a check, and an image capture element verifying an image quality of the captured image, wherein the image capture element includes a verification status of the captured image,
(See Ethington: “In an alternative embodiment, the bank receives 19C-600 a deposit request from a user. After acknowledging the deposit request, the bank then receives 19C-602 a digital image of the check. The digital image may be used by the bank to process the deposit request. The digital image may be used alone or in conjunction with additional information such as MICR information. After verifying 19C-604 the digital information, the bank processes 19C-606 the deposit request. The verification may include, but is not limited to, the verification of the quality of the digital image, the verification of any data retrieved from the digital image, the verification of additional information received along with the digital image, and/or the verification that the check has not been deposited before. After the bank verifies 19C-604 the digital information received and processes 19C-606 the deposit request, the bank then may transmit 19C-608 a void signal to void the check. As described earlier, there may be various manners in which to void the check, including, but not limited to, the application of a stimulus such as light, heat or sound. Upon application of the stimulus, the check is voided 19C-610.”)
wherein the transaction processing server generates the remote deposit transaction request message in the issuer-compatible format based on the remote deposit transaction request message in the first format[;]
(See Ethington: “In one embodiment, the MultiCrop platform 6B-20 may receive and process electronic data of deposit information from the user 6B-05 via the communication network. For example, in one implementation, the MultiCrop platform 6B-20 may generate check image in compliance with deposit formats (e.g., a Check 21 compliant check image file, a X9.37 cash letter check image, and/or the like), based on the received electronic data from the user 6B-05. In one implementation, the MultiCrop platform may analyze metadata associated with the received check image/video files such as GPS information, time stamp of image capture, IP address, MAC address, system identifier (for retail POS/kiosk deposits) and/or the like.”)
processing in real-time, by the issuer computer, the remote deposit transaction request message using the selected user account based on at least the check data; and
(See Ethington: “FIGS. 2A-2B provide logic flow diagrams illustrating embodiments of the MultiCrop. In one embodiment, MultiCrop may comprise an image uploading and processing component delivered to and installed at a user device. For example, a user may install an MultiCrop application at his personal computer, smart phone, and/or the like, and may instantiate the MultiCrop application for remote deposit. In an alternative implementation, the MultiCrop may comprise a check image processing module associated with a remote server, wherein the server may remotely control a user device to capture and upload check images for deposit, and process the check images in real-time or in a batch.”)
transmitting, by the issuer computer to the transaction processing server, an authorization response message indicating that a remote deposit transaction associated with the remote deposit transaction request message has been approved or declined in real-time.
(See Ethington: “In one implementation, upon receipt and approval of the electronic deposit data, the payee's bank 6B-60 may credit the corresponding funds to the payee's account. In one implementation, the MultiCrop platform 6B-20 may clear the check by presenting the electronic check information to an intermediary bank 6B-70, such as a regional branch of the Federal Reserve, a correspondent bank and/or a clearinghouse bank. In one embodiment, the payer's account at the payer's bank 6B-65 may be debited the corresponding funds.”)
(See Ethington: “In one embodiment, upon sending member card information to a MultiCrop platform, system approval may be received at the third party agent, and the user may be presented with a list of available accounts for deposit for selection 9A-112 a user interface, and determine whether an expected account 9A-118 is presented.”)
In regards to claim 3,
3. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the remote deposit transaction request message includes aggregated multiple checks for processing as a single transaction.
(See Ethington: “In further embodiments, a sleeve can be constructed that holds a plurality of checks—e.g., two or more checks—thereby allowing plural checks to be deposited at the same time.”)
In regards to claim 4,
4. (New) The method of claim 2, further comprising:
validating, by the issuer computer, the unique personal account identifier; and
crediting, by the issuer computer, the selected user account in an amount associated with the check.
(See Ethington: “If the user has been verified to be an eligible MultiCrop member 9F-206, the MultiCrop platform may retrieve account details associated with the user 9F-207, and determine whether the retrieved bank accounts are a are available for MultiCrop service 9F-208. If yes, a response may be formatted and sent to the third party agent via a user interface, presenting a list of authorized user bank accounts 9F-210. Otherwise, if the user is not a valid MultiCrop member 9F-206, or if the user has not validated any of his bank accounts for MultiCrop 9F-208, a denial may be sent to the third party agent 9F-212.”)
In regards to claim 5,
5. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the remote deposit transaction request message in the issuer-compatible format further includes one or more of a first data element identifying an amount of the remote deposit, a second data element identifying an account identifier associated with the check or a third data element including supplemental information about the user.
(See Ethington: “The RDC platform receiving the check image may then process the check image and extract deposit data from the digital check image. For example, in one implementation, the RDC may perform a series of image analysis procedures to enhance the received check image and extract deposit information such as payee's name, payee's bank, account number, bank routing number, deposit amount, and/or the like. In one implementation, after initial verification of the extracted deposit data, the RDC may post the deposit through direct banking and save the check image and the associated check deposit information in a transaction depository. In one implementation, the RDC may generate a substitute check (e.g., an X9.37 cash letter file) based on the received check image and send it to a clearinghouse bank (e.g., a regional branch of the Federal Reserve) for check clearance. In one implementation, the RDC may confirm, or cancel the soft posting of deposit funds based on the result of check clearance.”)
In regards to claim 6,
6. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the unique personal account identifier is linked with the plurality of user accounts to enable payment to any of the plurality of user accounts based on the unique personal account identifier.
(See Ethington: “In one implementation, the MultiCrop may provide a view including the cropped front sides and back sides of the check images, as the illustrated list of front side images 3D-54, and the list of back side images 3D-55 in FIG. 3D. The MultiCrop may then receive a user indication of deposit accounts 2B-53. For example, the user may select a deposit account from a list of accounts associated with the MultiCrop remote deposit account, as shown at 3E-58 in FIG. 3E.”)
(See Ethington: “For another example, to assist the depositor in determining which accounts may be available for deposit, a financial institution may display a list of financial accounts to the depositor. In a further implementation, if the MultiCrop is affiliated with a financial institution, the MultiCrop may generate a list of accounts, wherein the MultiCrop is granted access to the account by the account owner even if the account is at a different financial institution. For example, a user may submit a remote deposit request to the MultiCrop platform at Bank A but Bank A may provide an option for the user to directly deposit the check into his/her account at Bank B, if Bank A is authorized by the user to access his/her account at Bank B.”)
In regards to claim 7,
7. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the check data includes magnetic ink character recognition ("MICR") information retrieved from the captured image of the check, wherein the issuer computer authorizes or declines the remote deposit transaction request message based on at least the MICR information.
(See Ethington: “In one embodiment, the electronic data sent from the user 6B-05 may include extracted data information from the check. For example, in one implementation, the user 6B-05 may use a Magnetic Ink Character Recognition (MICR) device to scan and translate the MICR information (e.g., account number, routing number, check number, etc.) located on the check and transmit the data to the MultiCrop platform 6B-20 along with digital image files or video clip files of the check. In one implementation, the electronic data may include a user entered value indicating an amount to be deposited, and/or other user submitted information.”)
(See Ethington: “For example, in one implementation, upon receiving an image, the MultiCrop may perform a first order inspection of the image, e.g., to determine an image contrast score, or a source of the image, etc. If the first order inspector determines the received image is unacceptable, e.g., the image contrast score is lower than a minimum threshold, the image may be rejected without further inspection. Such hierarchical algorithm may be further discussed in FIG. 15C.
In one implementation, if the MultiCrop determines the image quality score is unacceptable 5A-67, the MultiCrop may reject the image by sending an image denial notice 5A-68 to the user. For example, the user may receive a message via a user interface displaying “Sorry! The check image can not be processed. Please re-scan.” The user may then elect to re-capture an image to restart the remote deposit, or exit the process.
In another implementation, if the MultiCrop determines the image quality score is acceptable at 5A-67, e.g., a general image quality score is higher than a threshold, or the hierarchical image analysis determines the image satisfies all requirements, etc., the MultiCrop may proceed to process the image to extract deposit information.”)
In regards to claim 8,
8. (New) The method of claim 2, further comprising:
receiving, by the issuer computer from the transaction processing server, the selected user account among the plurality of user accounts;
identifying, by the issuer computer, one or more sub-accounts associated with the selected user account;
providing, by the issuer computer to the transaction processing server, a subsequent list of the one or more sub-accounts to be displayed on a device associated with the user, wherein the user account identifier for the selected user account identifies one of the one or more sub- accounts.
(See Ethington: “In one implementation, the MultiCrop may provide a view including the cropped front sides and back sides of the check images, as the illustrated list of front side images 3D-54, and the list of back side images 3D-55 in FIG. 3D. The MultiCrop may then receive a user indication of deposit accounts 2B-53. For example, the user may select a deposit account from a list of accounts associated with the MultiCrop remote deposit account, as shown at 3E-58 in FIG. 3E.”)
The Examiner interprets that Ethington’s “list of accounts associated with the MultiCrop remote deposit account reads upon the claimed “, one or more sub-accounts associated with the selected user account”.
In regards to claim 9,
9. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the image capture element verifies that the image quality of the captured image conforms to a predefined image quality standard of the issuer computer for processing the remote deposit.
(See Ethington: “For example, in one implementation, upon receiving an image, the MultiCrop may perform a first order inspection of the image, e.g., to determine an image contrast score, or a source of the image, etc. If the first order inspector determines the received image is unacceptable, e.g., the image contrast score is lower than a minimum threshold, the image may be rejected without further inspection. Such hierarchical algorithm may be further discussed in FIG. 15C.
In one implementation, if the MultiCrop determines the image quality score is unacceptable 5A-67, the MultiCrop may reject the image by sending an image denial notice 5A-68 to the user. For example, the user may receive a message via a user interface displaying “Sorry! The check image can not be processed. Please re-scan.” The user may then elect to re-capture an image to restart the remote deposit, or exit the process.
In another implementation, if the MultiCrop determines the image quality score is acceptable at 5A-67, e.g., a general image quality score is higher than a threshold, or the hierarchical image analysis determines the image satisfies all requirements, etc., the MultiCrop may proceed to process the image to extract deposit information.”)
In regards to claim 10,
10. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the issuer-compatible format complies with an industry standard message format predefined for transaction request messages and includes the captured image as an image file.
(See Ethington: “In one embodiment, the MultiCrop platform 6B-20 may receive and process electronic data of deposit information from the user 6B-05 via the communication network. For example, in one implementation, the MultiCrop platform 6B-20 may generate check image in compliance with deposit formats (e.g., a Check 21 compliant check image file, a X9.37 cash letter check image, and/or the like), based on the received electronic data from the user 6B-05. In one implementation, the MultiCrop platform may analyze metadata associated with the received check image/video files such as GPS information, time stamp of image capture, IP address, MAC address, system identifier (for retail POS/kiosk deposits) and/or the like.”)
In regards to claim 11,
11. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein processing in real-time, by the issuer computer, the remote deposit transaction request message using the selected user account based on at least the check data further comprises:
applying, by the issuer computer, enhancement control parameters to downgrade the unique processing code from the remote deposit to a different transaction type for real-time authorization.
(See Ethington: “In one implementation, the check images may be sent to and updated at the MultiCrop platform 1020 in real time, and real time credit may be posted to the user's bank account 8D-130, as further FIGS. 9C.”)
(See Ethington: “In one implementation, the limited subset comparison may be performed in real time, and the remainder of the comparison may be conducted at a later time. For example, in one implementation, the MultiCrop may perform a multiple representment check within a 6-month database in real time on all MultiCrop channels and records. In another implementation, the MultiCrop may call a service to handle bulk transactions at batch time and to obtain a consolidated re-presentment report response, as will be further illustrated in FIG. 8B.”)
In regards to claim 12, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
In regards to claim 13, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
In regards to claim 14, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
In regards to claim 15, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
In regards to claim 16, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
In regards to claim 17, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
In regards to claim 18, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
In regards to claim 19, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
In regards to claim 20, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
In regards to claim 21, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.
Conclusion
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Examiner Ayal Sharon, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5614, and fax number is (571) 273-1794. The Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 6 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Christine Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103 or at christine.behncke@uspto.gov. The fax 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.
Sincerely,
/Ayal I. Sharon/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights