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 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 1-8, 10-17 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category, a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 or claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea of detecting, based on a log file of, an error event; identifying a customer associated with the error event based on the log file; accessing, from a customer identification database, a customer profile associated with the customer; authenticating the customer on, based on the customer profile; and initiating a mobile transaction session based on authenticating the customer, wherein the customer can complete a transaction with during the mobile transaction session, wherein the initiating comprises: displaying a barcode with an encoded identifier on that uniquely identifies; receiving image of the barcode; comparing the image of the barcode with the barcode to determine whether both include the encoded identifier; based on both including the encoded identifier, pairing; and generating to allow the customer to continue the transaction session on starting from a same point as where the customer left off on. This concept of conducting a transaction fall under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or claim 10 include: an automated teller machine (ATM); the ATM; a mobile application; the ATM via the mobile application; a display unit of the ATM, the ATM; the ATM and the mobile application; an interface on the mobile application; mobile; the mobile device; the ATM; the mobile application, scanned do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s specification in paragraph 0018 discloses processor and in paragraph 0022 discloses devices, such as a mobile device, a smart phone, a cellular phone, a personal digital assistant, a tablet computer, a notebook computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, or a kiosk such as an ATM. The additional elements amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed method/non-transitory computer readable medium. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of an automated teller machine (ATM); the ATM; a mobile application; the ATM via the mobile application; a display unit of the ATM, the ATM; the ATM and the mobile application; an interface on the mobile application; mobile; the mobile device; the ATM; the mobile application, scanned is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claim 10 recites similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-8 and 28-29, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 11-17 and 30-31, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 10. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-19, filed 6/10/2025, with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of claims 1 and 10 has been withdrawn.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to rejections under the 35 U.S.C. §101, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of detecting, based on a log file of, an error event; identifying a customer associated with the error event based on the log file; accessing, from a customer identification database, a customer profile associated with the customer; authenticating the customer on, based on the customer profile; and initiating a mobile transaction session based on authenticating the customer, wherein the customer can complete a transaction with during the mobile transaction session, wherein the initiating comprises: displaying a barcode with an encoded identifier on that uniquely identifies; receiving image of the barcode; comparing the image of the barcode with the barcode to determine whether both include the encoded identifier; based on both including the encoded identifier, pairing; and generating to allow the customer to continue the transaction session on starting from a same point as where the customer left off on. This concept of conducting a transaction fall under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors. The additional elements recited in claims include: an automated teller machine (ATM); the ATM; a mobile application; the ATM via the mobile application; a display unit of the ATM, the ATM; the ATM and the mobile application; an interface on the mobile application; mobile; the mobile device; the ATM; the mobile application, scanned do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s specification in paragraph 0018 discloses processor and in paragraph 0022 discloses devices, such as a mobile device, a smart phone, a cellular phone, a personal digital assistant, a tablet computer, a notebook computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, or a kiosk such as an ATM. The additional elements amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed method/non-transitory computer readable medium. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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. The dependent claims, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to example 35 in claim 2, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner have applied update 101 analysis based on applicant’s claims amendment. Unlike the Example 35 in claim 2, applicant’s specification in paragraph 0018 discloses processor and in paragraph 0022 discloses devices, such as a mobile device, a smart phone, a cellular phone, a personal digital assistant, a tablet computer, a notebook computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, or a kiosk such as an ATM could be utilized to implement the instant invention provides support for the assertion that the claims include: Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amounting to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The evidence to support an assertion of “well‐understood, routine, and conventional” for the current case is the following court decisions that have identified routine and conventional elements: Arranging, storing, retrieving, sorting, eliminating, and determining information with a computer as "normal, basic functions of a computer." (Versata) 793 F.3d at 1335, 115 USPQ2d at 1702; Receiving, processing, and storing data (Alice Corp); Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction); Electronic recordkeeping (Alice Corp and Ultramercial); Automating mental tasks (Benson, Bancorp and CyberSource), and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data (Ultramerical, buySafe, and Cyberfone). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument to claim 3 of Example 35, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In claim 3 of Example 35, the claims recite a process that differs from the routine and conventional. Unlike, claims 3 of Example 35, the current claims are directed to routine and conventional way of sending money transfer. In paragraph 0120 of applicant’s specification states that “perform routines having steps, or employ systems having processes or methods”. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to McRO, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike McRO, applicant’s specification and claims do not describe technological improvements, or a specific improvement to the way computers detect, identifying, accessing, authenticating and receiving data. Rather, applicant’s specification and claims described generic ATM and device. The claims do not to improve the performance of computers or any underlying technology; instead, the focus is to use generic device(s), computer and/or machine. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to Berkheimer, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695