Digital Check Corp. Software Patent Information and Status

Digital Check Corporation

Software Patent Information and Status

June 23, 2018

General Information

In 2014 Digital Check Corporation filed two software patents on basic check/document imaging technology with Rian Maloney and Scott Weber listed as "inventors". In 2016, Rian Maloney and Scott Weber filed two additional patent applications. The following page contains links to PDF copies of the patents, and an annotated timeline with links to the over 50 pieces of prior art already provided to Digital Check Corp.

UniSoft Imaging believes Rian Maloney and Scott Weber patented obvious standard check/document imaging processing technology and significant known prior art was not cited to the United States Patent Office as required by patent law. UniSoft Imaging and other companies have provided Digital Check Corporation with over 50 pieces of prior art. Much of the provided prior art comes from Digital Check Corporation's own website (cited in "RED") from articles written up to 14 years ago. Rian Maloney is employed by Digital Check Corp. as the Vice President of Software. Scott Weber works for Rian as a senior applications software engineer. Both Rian Maloney and Scott Weber worked previously for Argo, Metavante, and VECTORsgi and have significant prior knowledge about the check processing industry and common banking processes.

UniSoft Imaging believes the patents conflict with processes that have been used by UniSoft Imaging for over 20 years and by the check processing industry for over 25 years. UniSoft Imaging has requested release from these patents and Digital Check Corp. has refused our request multiple times.

UniSoft Imaging has provided Digital Check Corporation with lists of companies that create products similar to "CLEAR" that predate "CLEAR" by over ten years and used many of the patented processes. Please refer to prior art from Banctec, Kofax, Recogiform Technologies, AllMyPapers, TMS, Inlite Technologies, Argo, and Metavante. Even CAR/LAR tools from Orbograph, Parascript, and A2iA used re-thresholding based on zonal thresholding to improve CAR/LAR results.

UniSoft Imaging plans on continuing to find and release prior art to Digital Check Corporation. If anyone has significant published prior art, please contact us at calvin.aiken@unisoftimaging.com. UniSoft Imaging invites everyone to also send copies to Digital Check Corp.'s lawyer Engel, Jason A. Engel. His email is jason.engel@klgates.com.

Current Status

Patents and Patent Applications

The patents are all 21 pages or less including diagrams. Three of the patents have the same name "ADJUSTING DIFFERENT AREAS OF A PAYMENT INSTRUMENT IMAGE INDEPENDENTLY" and basically the same diagrams. Part of the reason the patent office rejected patent application US 2017/0249603 A9 was the duplication of claims with previous patents.

Timeline

2004: Digital Check Corp. joins the Financial Services Technology Consortium on FSTC Image Quality and Usability Project and UniSoft Imaging develops software to meet standards. UniSoft Imaging uses FSTC IQA standards to develop Adaptive thresholding process to improve CAR/LAR results at BankOne.

2005: The DCCScan function is added to the Digital Check Corp. Scanner API, DCCAPI, by UniSoft Imaging. This function does automatic adaptive thresholding based on FSTC IQA standards to return the best MICR and Image from a single check scanner function call. Options can also be enabled to clean up corners, remove excessive speckles, re-threshold if image is too light or too dark, and perform other FSTC image quality tests.

2008: Special Document Handling is added to the DCCAPI which allows zonal thresholding using two different contrasts. Routing and optional customer account numbers from the MICR are used to override adaptive thresholding of money orders and other especially difficult checks.

2013: Rian Maloney and Scott Weber join Digital Check Corp. after previously working for VECTORsgi, Metavante, and Argo. At all these previous companies, Rian and Scott used the Digital Check Corp. Scanner API, referred to as the DCCAPI.

April 18, 2014:

March 2, 2015:

October 22, 2015:

January 11, 2016:

July 5, 2016: Patent 9,384,392 is issued by United States Patent Office.

July 18, 2016: Rian Maloney and Scott Weber filed Patent application US 2017/0249603.

July 19, 2016: Patent 9,396,461 is issued by United States Patent Office.

August 30, 2016: Digital Check Corp. announces two patents on "unique" zoned thresholding technology. It should be noted that the Rian Maloney and Scott Weber did not use the terms "zone" or "zonal" in either patent US 9,384,392 or US 9,396,461 and did in the first article discussing them. Copied from http://www.digitalcheck.com/check-image-enhancement-patents/

April 06, 2017: Patent application US 2017/0249603 first published as patent application US 2017-0098201 (after publishing many claims were removed and patent was republished as US 2017/0249603)

July 13, 2017: Published Patent application US 2017-0200059

August 31, 2017: Published Patent application US 2017/0249603 (Second time published after United States Patent Office forced Digital Check Corp. to limit their patent claims and remove 20 duplicate claims.)

September 13, 2017:

September 15, 2017:

Sept 22, 2017:

Nov 6, 2017:

November 27, 2017:

November 29, 2017:

Dec 11, 2017:

December 20, 2017:

January 2, 2018:

January 10, 2018:

January 12, 2018: Digital Check Corp. files prior art provided from Panini and Recogiform Technologies against their patent applications. Most of the prior art provided by UniSoft Imaging since December 20, 2017 has still not been filed against the patent applications.

January 19, 2018: Third Party Pre-issuance submissions are accepted by United States Patent Office and attached to patent US 2017/0200059 A1.

January 22, 2018:

February 9, 2018:

February 22, 2018:

March 5, 2018:

April 17, 2018:

April 25, 2018:

May 8, 2018:

May 15, 2018:

June 7, 2018:

June 11, 2018:




Patent Basics from United States Patent Office Website (www.uspto.gov)

Novelty And Non-Obviousness, Conditions For Obtaining A Patent

In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if:

"(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention" or

"(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued [by the U.S.] or in an application for patent published or deemed published [by the U.S.], 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."

There are certain limited patent law exceptions to patent prohibitions (1) and (2) above. Notably, an exception may apply to a "disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention," but only if "the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed. from the inventor or a joint inventor."

In patent prohibition (1), the term "otherwise available to the public" refers to other types of disclosures of the claimed invention such as, for example, an oral presentation at a scientific meeting, a demonstration at a trade show, a lecture or speech, a statement made on a radio talk show, a YouTubeT video, or a website or other on-line material.

Effective filing date of the claimed invention: This term appears in patent prohibitions (1) and (2). For a U.S. nonprovisional patent application that is the first application containing the claimed subject matter, the term "effective filing date of the claimed invention" means the actual filing date of the U.S. nonprovisional patent application. For a U.S. nonprovisional application that claims the benefit of a corresponding prior-filed U.S. provisional application, "effective filing date of the claimed invention" can be the filing date of the prior-filed provisional application provided the provisional application sufficiently describes the claimed invention. Similarly, for a U.S. nonprovisional application that is a continuation or division of a prior-filed U.S. nonprovisional application, "effective filing date of the claimed invention" can be the filing date of the prior filed nonprovisional application that sufficiently describes the claimed invention. Finally, "effective filing date of the claimed invention" may be the filing date of a prior-filed foreign patent application to which foreign priority is claimed provided the foreign patent application sufficiently describes the claimed invention.

Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be non-obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.

2016 Fraud, Inequitable Conduct, or Violation of Duty of Disclosure Affects All Claims [R-08.2017]

A finding of "fraud," "inequitable conduct," or violation of duty of disclosure with respect to any claim in an application or patent, renders all the claims thereof unpatentable or invalid.

2001.01 Who Has Duty To Disclose [R-08.2017]

37 CFR 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability.

*****

(c) Individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application within the meaning of this section are:

(1) Each inventor named in the application;

(2) Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the application; and

(3) Every other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, the applicant, an assignee, or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application.