DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
The claims filed on 2/20/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-9, 15, and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 15 are independent.
Claims 1, 6, and 15 are currently amended.
Claims 2-3, 7-9, 18, and 20 are previously presented.
Claims 4-5, 17, and 19 are original.
Claims 10-14 and 16 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/20/2026, have been considered but are not fully persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The prior rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the current amendment.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the rejection of claims 1-9, 15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, Applicant argues that Smith (US 2016/0063619 A1), Castro (US 2015/0237128 A1), and Hanson (US 2012/0265809 A1) do not teach the amended feature of “enforcing security during enumeration and subscription to the collaborative session”.
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Smith teaches enumeration and subscription (joining) in a collaborative transaction by presenting available logged-on devices and enabling selected devices to join or take over an active transaction session (see para. 0017, 0041, 0044). Castro teaches enforcing security for device participation in an omnichannel collaborative session by authenticating devices before permitting them to join the omnichannel environment (see para. 0010, 0141). Here, the combination of the device authentication of Castro with the enumeration and subscription process of Smith ensures that only authorized devices are discoverable and permitted to subscribe or to join the collaborative transaction session. Thus, the combination teaches “enforcing security during enumeration and subscription to the collaborative session”.
Applicant further argues that Smith and Castro do not teach enumerating or listing available sessions for a user or device to discover. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, claims 1 and 15 merely recite “… enumeration and subscription to the collaborative session”. This reasonably encompasses Smith’s presentation and selection of available logged-on devices, as discussed above, and is not necessarily limited to enumerating or listing available sessions for a user or device to discover.
Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the cited references because they address fundamentally different technical problems; that none of these references recognizes the technical problem solved by the present invention: providing security-controlled enumeration and subscription for collaborative transaction sessions across heterogeneous channels in banking and retail environments; and that modifying any of these references to include the claimed security enforcement during enumeration and subscription would require recognition of a problem none of the references address-namely, the need for multi-layered security that controls both discovery of available sessions and access to session event streams in a collaborative transaction environment.
The argument is not persuasive. The cited prior art is reasonably pertinent to the problem presented by Applicant. Smith teaches a collaborative banking transaction environment, including enumerating available logged-on users and allowing selected devices to subscribe (join) and receive transaction session data. Castro teaches securing omnichannel collaboration by authenticating and authorizing devices before participation as well as using authorization tokens for secure communication. The references are reasonably pertinent and provide a clear motivation to combine without hindsight, i.e. to increase security.
For the above reasons, the rejections are maintained herein.
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.
Claims 1-9, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2016/0063619 A1) in view of Castro (US 2015/0237128 A1), further in view of Hanson (US 2012/0265809 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Smith discloses a method (and related system comprising a network interface device/processor/memory device) comprising:
executing a set of services on a server accessible via a network by end-point applications, wherein each service performs at least one of initiating, transacting, or ending collaboration sessions (see para. 0003-0004, 0031);
conducting a collaborative session on the server over the network between at least a first end-point application, a second end-point application, and a third end- point application (see para. 0003-0004, 0031),
wherein the collaborative session is initiated by the first end-point application and joined by the second end-point application (see para. 0003-0004, 0031),
adjusting user interfaces associated with the first end-point application, the second end-point application, and the third end-point application based on a real-time state (see para. 0003-0004, 0031); and
transmitting data representative of input received within a user interface with regard to the collaborative session over the network to the server to enable transacting the collaborative session between the first end-point application, second end-point application, and third end-point application state (see para. 0015-0021);
enumeration and subscription to the collaborative session (see para. 0017, 0041, 0044);
wherein the set of services further comprise an omni-channel collaboration infrastructure that enables transactions to be shared in real time across multiple channels (see para. 0016-0021);
providing, through the omni-channel collaboration infrastructure, a generalized collaboration infrastructure to enable addressing a class of omni-channel collaboration experiences, wherein at least one of the omni-channel collaboration experiences comprises starting a particular transaction on a first channel associated with a user device and sharing the particular transaction to another channel to enable fulfillment of the particular transaction on a terminal (see para. 0015-0021);
wherein the first end-point application is utilized by a first user and the second end-point application is tailored to and utilized by a bank teller on a bank teller mobile device (see para. 0016-0021);
Smith does not explicitly disclose, but Castro teaches:
managing and maintaining a session via a combination of a session specific data structure and key value pairs (see para. 0071-0073);
wherein the first end-point application and the second end-point application subscribe to data processing events from the server (see para. 0071-0073); and
wherein the server receives data processing event data published by the at least one of first end-point application or the second end-point application and the server provides the data processing event data to other subscribing end-point applications (see para. 0071-0073);
enforcing security (see para. 0010, 0141-0143);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and system of Smith to include the features taught by Castro.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to enable real-time updates of changes that should be applied to local copies of data (see Castro, para. 0071-0073) and to securely communicate with peers (see Castro, para. 0143).
Smith does not explicitly disclose, but Hanson teaches a third end-point application utilized by the first user (see para. 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Smith to include the feature of Hanson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because using the customer's mobile device as opposed to the ATM, may shorten the length of time that the customer interacts with the ATM, thus making the ATM available for a waiting customer (see Hanson, para. 0037).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Smith discloses wherein the set of services include services including initiating a session, adding a transaction to a session, publishing session and transaction data processing event data, subscribing to session and transaction data processing event data, sharing content, requesting and receiving input, ending a transaction, and ending a session (see para. 0015-0021).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses wherein the first end-point application controls operation of a self-service terminal (SST) (see para. 0015-0021).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Smith discloses wherein the self-service terminal is an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) (see para. 0015-0021).
Regarding claim 5, Smith disclose wherein the first end-point application is an application tailored to a first user-type and the second end-point application is tailored to a second user-type (see para. 0015-0021).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses wherein: the collaborative session is joined by the first end-point application, the first end- point application executes on a self-service terminal (SST) to control operation of the SST (see para. 0015-0021).
Regarding claim 7, Castro teaches receiving a request over the network from the first end-point application to provide an electronic form to the second end-point application; retrieving the electronic form from data storage; and transmitting the electronic form over the network to the second end-point application (see para. 0071-0073, wherein the difference between a file and form is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material and intended use).
Regarding claim 8, Castro teaches receiving the electronic form populated with data over the network from the second end- point application (see para. 0071-0073).
Regarding claim 9, Castro teaches processing the electronic form populated with data to extract the data from the electronic form; storing the data extracted from the electronic form in a database (see para. 0071-0073).
Regarding claim 18, Smith and Hanson teach wherein the first end-point application, the second end-point application, or the third end-point application include: a self-service terminal (SST) application that executes on a computing device that controls operation of an SST; and a mobile device app (see Smith para. 0015-0021, Hanson para. 0037-0038).
Regarding claim 19, Hanson teaches wherein the mobile device app is a customer-tailored mobile device app that, when participating in a session to which the SST application is also connected, enables input of additional data to conduct transactions on the SST (see para. 0037-0038)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pender (US 2016/0212125 A1) discloses methods, systems, and computer-readable media for authenticating customers of an organization and managing authenticated sessions of various customers. Some aspects of the disclosure provide ways for a customer of an organization to authenticate using a mobile computing device, such as the customer's personal mobile device, when interacting with the organization in various contexts, such as when accessing an automated transaction device or when interacting with an agent of the organization during an in-person session or during a teleconference session. In some arrangements, the customer's authentication status, which may be established on the mobile computing device and which, in some instances, may be verified based on the location of the mobile computing device, may be carried over from the mobile computing device to another computing device or system, such as an automated transaction device or a teller terminal device, which may be used by an agent of the organization.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights