DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 07/15/2025.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement(s) filed 07/23/2026 and 02/04/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 contains the acronym “CIR”, not previously defined in the claims. Acronyms should be defined in the claims. 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.
Claim 2-11 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 2 recites the limitation "the risk" in the 6th line of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “quickly” in claim 2 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. Since quickly is a relative term, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes of bounds of what would qualify to as quickly for approving or declining image.
Regarding 7, the claims recite the phrase “wherein the user interface includes at least some…”, the Merriam-Webster definition of “some” is being of an unspecified amount or number, therefor the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear as it’s not clear which of a notes section, a global score associated with the plurality of detectors associated with the new incoming check image, the channel on which new incoming check image was received, and the number of profile checks in the related CIR are to be included. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will the interpret “wherein the user interface includes at least some…” as “wherein the user interface includes at least one or more of”.
Claims 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of being dependent on claim 2.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) - The claims pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards a method.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) - The idea is recited in the claims, in part, by:
receiving a new incoming check image associated with an account;
extracting from the incoming check its features, wherein the features are associated with a plurality of detectors;
comparing the features with corresponding features associated with profile check images stored in a CIR;
developing one or more fraud scores based on the comparisons, for each of the plurality of detectors; and
returning the fraud scores.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, mitigating risk, and hedging) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting at least one hardware processor, a mobile deposit application, and a user interface nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than fundamental economic principles or practices for determining fraud scores based analyzing features of an image of a check. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of at least one hardware processor, a mobile deposit application, and a user interface. The at least one hardware processor, mobile deposit application, and user interface are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment are not indicative of a practical application (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h)). See also Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 2019 USPQ2d 281076 (Fed. Cir. 2019), in which the claims were to methods for electronically processing paper checks, all of which contained limitations setting forth receiving merchant transaction data from a merchant, crediting a merchant’s account, and receiving and scanning paper checks after the merchant’s account is credited in which the Courts found the claims to be ineligible. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of at least one hardware processor, a mobile deposit application, and a user interface to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment does not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see 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), and Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26, 110 USPQ2d 1984-1985 (2014) (see also creating and maintaining "shadow accounts", "create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" (, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l 573 U.S. at 224-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85);, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);, Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."), are well-understood routine and conventional. Further, the displaying step falls to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements (see MPEP 2106.05(h) Electric Power Group court decision). The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, claims 2-11 are all steps that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas, generally linking the use of the judicial exemption to a particular technical computing environment and ineligible for the same reasons as discussed above. For example, with respect to claim 9 and allowing the user to overlay the check image, this is akin to Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);, and does not result in an improvement to the devices themselves, or a practical application. The Dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriegsfeld, et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20210090086), “Kriegsfeld” in view of Hernandez, et al. (US Patent Application 20210073819). “Hernandez”.
As per claim 1, Kriegsfeld discloses:
A method comprising using at least one hardware processor to: [0110]
receiving a new incoming check image associated with an account from a mobile deposit application; [0020], [0046] In some embodiments, a mobile deposition application requests this information from a user of the mobile device, allows the user to capture an image of a check or to select an image of a check that has already been captured, or both, and the mobile deposit information provides the check image, the check content, and other processing parameters to the MCIPS 100… The process is illustrated in FIG. 8A, in which a plurality of reference check images 802a-N related to a user account 804 are received and features 806, such as those listed above are extracted and stored in the CIR database 808.
extracting from the incoming check its features, wherein the features are associated with a plurality of detectors; [0004-0020], [0024] The process is illustrated in FIG. 8A, in which a plurality of reference check images 802a-N related to a user account 804 are received and features 806, such as those listed above are extracted and stored in the CIR database 808. It should be pointed out that the reference checks 802a-N are known to be good, and associated with account 804… compare the features with the feature information stored in the CIR database for the account associated with the test check, and generate a fraud score by generating a local fraud scores by evaluating S(i), i=1-M, for each of M primitive fraud detectors, wherein the local fraud score produced by the i-th primitive detector is the function of the minimum difference between the feature value F(i) of the test check and features R(i,j) of all of the plurality of reference checks associated with the account associated with the test check from the CIR database, where S(i)=min {f(F(i)−R(i,j))}, i=1-15, j=1-N, and N is the number of reference checks, and generate a Global fraud score (G) as a normalized weighted product of local scores: G=(Π(S(i)+α(i))){circumflex over ( )}β, i=1-15, wherein α(i) is in the range of approximately 0.03-0.005, and β is in the range of approximately 0.3-0.1.
comparing the features with corresponding features associated with profile check images stored in a CIR; [0021] As can be seen in FIG. 8B, once the CIR 808 is created, then when a new check image 803, supposedly associated with account 804 is received, then the same features 805 can be extracted from the new image and compared with the CIR 808. A fraud detection score 810 can then be determined based on the comparison.
developing one or more fraud scores based on the comparisons, for each of the plurality of detectors; and [0024], [0071] The principle of score (810) calculation is the following: [0072] 1. The local fraud score for each indicator is plotted on an x-y axis, and then each corresponding feature is plotted and the distance determined relative to the local fraud scores. This step would look like the following: Local fraud scores S(i), i=1-15, are evaluated for each of, e.g., 15 primitive fraud detectors… compare the features with the feature information stored in the CIR database for the account associated with the test check, and generate a fraud score by generating a local fraud scores by evaluating S(i), i=1-M, for each of M primitive fraud detectors, wherein the local fraud score produced by the i-th primitive detector is the function of the minimum difference between the feature value F(i) of the test check and features R(i,j) of all of the plurality of reference checks associated with the account associated with the test check from the CIR database, where S(i)=min {f(F(i)−R(i,j))}, i=1-15, j=1-N, and N is the number of reference checks, and generate a Global fraud score (G) as a normalized weighted product of local scores: G=(Π(S(i)+α(i))){circumflex over ( )}β, i=1-15, wherein α(i) is in the range of approximately 0.03-0.005, and β is in the range of approximately 0.3-0.1.
Kriegsfeld does not expressly disclose the following, Hernandez, however discloses the following:
returning the fraud scores to the mobile deposit application. [0067], [0079], [0100] The computing environment 201 can include an alert service 221 configured to generate and transmit alerts (e.g., to an external system 203, computing device 206, or other networked device). An alert can include, but is not limited to, an electronic notification, push alert, email, text message, telephone call, and other electronic messages. An alert can include a summary of a potential fraud event and various input and output data associated with processes by which the potential fraud event was determined. An alert can include a system or user identifier that is associated with a particular system contributor, system user, and/or external system 203… An external system 203 can include one or more systems associated with an entity, such as a financial institution. Non-limiting examples of external systems 203 include, but are not limited to, wire transfer systems, banking systems, such as, for example, banking cores, teller systems, such as, for example, systems for configuring customer accounts, and for processing deposits and withdrawals to and from customer accounts, online and/or e-banking systems, such as, for example, mobile banking software in communication with mobile applications running on a mobile electronic device, telephone banking systems, bill payment systems, data warehouses such as, for example, distributed, cloud-based data warehouses, mobile deposit capture services, such as, for example, mobile capture check depositing applications… By the process 400, various analytical outputs can be generated including, but not limited to, fraud likelihood scores, determinations of anomalous activity, and identifications of particular fraud behaviors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kriegsfeld with the ability to send the fraud scores to the mobile app as taught by Hernandez, doing so further allows for the alert with the fraud scores to be sent to appropriate parties applications [0079].
As per claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the teachings of the prior art to teach claim 2 in view of Kreigsfeld and Hernandez, therefor based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter and claim 2 would overcome the art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshida, et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20250307825) discloses “In some embodiments, the mobile banking application may be opened on the mobile device, the check deposit function selected, the camera may be activated, the camera frame buffer populated with an image of the check, real-time OCR performed on the data from the camera frame buffer while on the mobile device, and the identified fields communicated to a check assessment model for determination of a likelihood (e.g., a confidence score) that the check corresponds to legitimate deposit activity (and/or a likelihood that the check corresponds to illegitimate deposit activity). Viera, et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20140112571) discloses “User interface 500 can also include an edit image control button 550. Edit image control button 550 can be used by a user to invoke a deposit document image information verifier or editor. In this particular example, a user may have noticed that various risk factors shown in section 530 indicate that the automated system that initially processed the uploaded deposit document image encountered various errors. For example, the backside of the deposit document may have been submitted upside down, the date may not have been recognized by the OCR sub module, the system duplicated the primary code line, the payee does not match a valid account holder or institution, or the primary account has been black-listed by an institution. Such errors or risk factors may be the result of a poorly aligned or badly imaged deposit document during image capture. For example, when button 550 is clicked, the deposit document image information verifier or editor user interface can be displayed. FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary user interface 600 of a deposit document image information editor according to various embodiments of the present invention. As shown, deposit document image information editor user interface 600 can include a number of controls and options. For example, deposit document image information editor user interface 600 can include a button to automatically or manually crop or de-skew the check image in section 610. User-interface 600 can also include a section 630 of controls for rotating the orientation of the check image in section 610. According to various embodiment the present invention, the user interface 600 can also include links or controls for displaying related or alternate versions of the check image 610, as shown in controls 650, 660, 670, and 680. User interface 500 can also include an edit image control button 550. Edit image control button 550 can be used by a user to invoke a deposit document image information verifier or editor. In this particular example, a user may have noticed that various risk factors shown in section 530 indicate that the automated system that initially processed the uploaded deposit document image encountered various errors. For example, the backside of the deposit document may have been submitted upside down, the date may not have been recognized by the OCR sub module, the system duplicated the primary code line, the payee does not match a valid account holder or institution, or the primary account has been black-listed by an institution. Such errors or risk factors may be the result of a poorly aligned or badly imaged deposit document during image capture. For example, when button 550 is clicked, the deposit document image information verifier or editor user interface can be displayed. FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary user interface 600 of a deposit document image information editor according to various embodiments of the present invention. As shown, deposit document image information editor user interface 600 can include a number of controls and options. For example, deposit document image information editor user interface 600 can include a button to automatically or manually crop or de-skew the check image in section 610. User-interface 600 can also include a section 630 of controls for rotating the orientation of the check image in section 610. According to various embodiment the present invention, the user interface 600 can also include links or controls for displaying related or alternate versions of the check image 610, as shown in controls 650, 660, 670, and 680.” Shevyrev, et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20230281629) discloses “The present disclosure relates to systems, non-transitory computer-readable media, and methods that utilize a check-return machine-learning model to predict whether a mobile check deposit will result in a check-return (e.g., due to mobile check deposit fraud). For instance, the disclosed systems can receive a request to initiate a mobile check deposit. In response to the request, the disclosed systems identify one or more features associated with the mobile check deposit. For example, the one or more features may include check features, historical returned and posted checks for a check maker account, recipient account historical data, or recipient account payment schedule data, etc. From the one or more features, the check-return machine-learning model generates a check-return prediction. In turn, the disclosed systems utilize the check-return prediction to process the mobile check deposit.” Cantley, et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20140355865) discloses “Referring now to FIGS. 9-10, exemplary combination images illustrating various overlay configurations in accordance with embodiments described herein are provided. In FIG. 9, an exemplary combination configuration 910 comprising data from two or more check images is illustrated. In some embodiments, the combination configuration 910 comprises the overlay configuration of FIG. 7 comprising the check template 600, first check image data 710, and second check image data 720. In other embodiments, the combination configuration 910 comprises the overlay configuration of FIG. 8 comprising the check images 810 and 820. As shown in FIG. 9, a difference 920 is provided in the combination configuration 910 corresponding to the payee portions of two or more check images. The difference 920 in the illustrated embodiment comprises different markings, a different position of the markings on the payee line, and different character spacing for each of the two or more check image data. The difference 920 may also include, for example, different font, different color saturation of the markings, different pixel amounts, different focus values (i.e., blurriness or crispness), and the like for each of the two or more check image data. Also provided in FIG. 9 is a second difference 930. In some embodiments, the second difference 930 comprises an additional marking that is included in some of the two or more check images but not in all of the check images. For example, the second difference 930 may include a paper hole, stain, circular stamp, ink blot, or any other type of marking that appears in a signature portion or right, lower corner of a first check image, but not in the same area of a second check image.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights