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 7/11/2025.
Claims 1-20 were previously presented.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 5 and 7 recites an abbreviation “MICR”. What is the “MICR” stand for? The abbreviation “MICR” needs to spell out. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 19 and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites “A set of one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions thereon that when executed by a set of one or more processors, cause the set to perform the method of claim 1”. Claim 20 recites “An apparatus comprising the set of one or more processors and the set of one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 19”. Claim 19 and claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps or elements (i.e., incomplete for missing the body of the claims) such omission amounting to a gap between the steps or elements. The omitted matter must be shown to be essential to the invention, not merely preferred or illustrative features (In re Goffe, 542 F.2d 564, 191 USPQ 429). Thus, claims 19 and 20 are indefinite. See MPEP § 2172.01.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a non-transitory computer-readable media, an apparatus, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…obtaining an image snippet containing characters; determining a first set of bounding boxes for a first subset of the characters, wherein a second subset of the characters are not associated with a respective bounding box of the first set of bounding boxes; defining a set of search regions within the image snippet, wherein each respective search region of the set of search regions is an area within the image snippet that is not contained within one of the determined bounding boxes of the first set of bounding boxes; defining additional bounding boxes based on the set of search regions, thereby defining a second set of bounding boxes that includes the first set of bounding boxes for the first subset of the characters and one or more additional bounding boxes associated with the second subset of characters; processing each respective bounding box of the second set of bounding boxes; and returning a result of the processing”. These limitations do not recite a particular machine or a computer. Thus, they are directed to purely mental steps. Therefore, these recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite a particular machine or a computer. Therefore, there are no additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include in the method claim. Accordingly, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite a particular machine or a computer. Therefore, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 19-20 and dependent claims 2-18 do not recite a particular machine or a computer. Thus, the claims are rejected based on the same reasoning as above in claim 1. Thus, the claims are not eligible.
Notes: Regarding the prior arts, Maloney (2006/0112013) teaches a method and a system for communicating secure electronic check images. In one embodiment, for example, software is operable to determine a first hash value for an electronic check image, with the check image operable to generate an image replacement document. The hash value is associated with the electronic check image. The electronic check image and the associated hash value is communicated to a recipient for processing. One or more embodiments of the invention may include several important technical advantages. For example, the disclosure may describe a more secure financial network for communicating legal representations of checks. In another example, the disclosure may allow a bank to process an IRD with more assured sense of validity. Hunter et al. (2021/0166207) teaches a system is disclosed to enable electronic processing of a paper check written from a payer to a payee. An image of the paper check is captured using an application on a device controlled by the user along with data about the third party to whom payment is intended. The user device transmits the image and data via a software application to the payee bank (or other financial institution). The payee bank receives the image and data at a server that builds an image file with the received image(s) and data. The images and data can be formatted as an image cash letter (ICL) file such as an intraday or end of day (EOD) biller X9 image file. Alternatively, the images can be aggregated and presented to the payee for review in a Remote Deposit Capture (RDC) application for deposit. The payee bank ingests and validates conformity of the check images and data. The payee bank can send an electronic acknowledgment back to the user device to confirm receipt of the payment by the payee. The bank deposits (credits) the accumulated funds into the payee's DDA account at the bank and transmits electronic check information to the Federal Reserve or directly to the payer financial institution for presentment (debit) to the payer. Oakes, III et al. (11,461,743) teaches a method and a system related to financial institution electronics, such as a server equipped with appropriate hardware and software for facilitating deposit of a check. Such electronics may be configured for receiving from a customer computer an identification of an account for deposit of a check, and an amount of said check. They may be further configured for receiving an image of a front side of said check, and for analyzing said image to determine if it meets at least one criterion. The criterion could be, for example, image size, image legibility, image orientation, image format, presence of certain image features that indicate the image in fact represents a check, and so forth. Financial institution electronics may be also configured for determining if there is an error in a deposit transaction. Numerous errors are possible candidates for detection, and several exemplary errors are provided herein. If there are no errors that warrant aborting the transaction, then such electronics may be further configured to initiate a deposit of the check.
However, the combination of prior arts of record would be hind-sight reasoning to combine the individual elements disclosed in the prior art in order to achieve Applicant's claimed invention. Thus, claims 1-20 are defined over the prior arts.
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