DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered.
3. Currently claims 1, 13 and 15-20 have been amended; claims 2, 6, and 9 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8 and 10-21 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More).
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, 3-5, 7, 8 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
Considering each of claims 1, 15 and 20 as representative claims, the following limitations recite an abstract idea:
— regarding claim 1, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
[collect] training data including at least one of user inefficiency data, error data or transaction data;
determine an identity of a user; generate, based on the identity of the user, a competency baseline using historical data associated with the user, the competency baseline based at least partly on a level of training and amount of user experience;
[collect] intervention data;
detect, using [algorithm]; an intervention event in connection with user activity of the user involving cash management from intervention data;
determine the intervention event is a new action based on the competency baseline [by]:
comparing a number of previous occurrences of the user activity being performed with an intervention threshold; and
determine the intervention invent is the new action when the number is less than the intervention threshold;
generate using the [algorithm] and the intervention data, output data including a customized intervention particular to the intervention event, the identity of the user, and the competency baseline when the intervention event is determined to be the new action;
[deliver] the customized intervention for presentation to the user;
in response to determining that the intervention event is the new action, process one or more transactions that are not accounted for as a site transaction.
— regarding claim 15, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
[collect] training data including at least one of user inefficiency data, error data or transaction data;
determine an identity of a user;
generate, based on the identity of the user, a competency baseline using historical data associated with the user, the competency baseline based at least partly on a level of training and amount of user experience;
[collect] an intervention data;
detect, using [algorithm], an intervention event in connection with user activity of the user involving cash management from intervention data;
determine the intervention event is a new action based on the competency baseline [by]:
comparing a number of previous occurrences of the user activity being performed with an intervention threshold; and
determining the intervention event is the new action based on when the number is less than a threshold;
generate using the [algorithm] and the intervention data, output data including a customized intervention particular to the intervention event, the identity of the user, and the competency baseline when the intervention event is determined to be the new action;
[deliver] the customized intervention for presentation to the user;
when the intervention event is determined to be the new action, process funds that are not accounted for as a site transaction.
— regarding claim 20, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
[collect] training data including at least one of user inefficiency data, error data or transaction data;
determine an identity of [a] user;
determine an authentication level for the user based on the identity of the user;
generate, based on the identity of the user, a competency baseline using historical data associated with the user, the competency baseline based at least in part on a level of training and amount of user experience;
[collect] intervention data;
detect, using [algorithm], an intervention event in connection with user activity of the user involving cash management;
determine the intervention event is a new action based on the competency baseline [by]:
comparing a number of previous occurrences of the user activity being performed with an intervention threshold;
determine the intervention event is the new action when the number is less than the intervention threshold, r os
generate, using the [algorithm] and the interventional data, output data including a customized intervention when the intervention event is determined to be the new action, the customized intervention particular to the intervention event and the one or more settings;
[deliver] the customized intervention for presentation to the user;
when the intervention event is determined to be the new action, process funds that are not accounted for as a site transaction.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior, such as teaching. It is worth to note—per the original disclosure—that: (i) “intervention data” corresponds to the user’s activity, (ii) “intervention event” corresponds to an error or an insufficiency determined regarding the user’s activity, and (iii) “user intervention” or “customized intervention” is a training material(s); thus, the “customized intervention”, which the claimed method presents to the user based on the evaluation of one or more parameters relevant to the user (e.g., data that indicates: the user’s identity, the user’s competency baseline, and/or the user’s actions etc.), is in fact a training material in order to improve the user’s skills regarding the task that the user is performing (e.g., see the specification: [0026], [0027], [0043], etc.).
Similarly, given one or more of the current claimed limitations that recite the process of: determining an identity of a user; determining an intervention event is a new action based on a competency baseline, comparing a number of previous occurrences of the user activity being performed with an intervention threshold, and determining the intervention event is a new action when the number is less than the intervention threshold, etc., the current claims also overlap with the group mental processes; such as an evaluation, a judgment and/or an observation process, etc.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two
The claim(s) recite additional elements, wherein one or more computing systems (e.g., an intervention computing system, an authentication systems), including a cash management system that comprises one or more sensors (one or more of a microphone, an imager, and a touchscreen sensor), which is utilized to facilitate the recited functions/steps regarding one or more of the following: generating a trained neural network (e.g., generating a trained neural network using an intervention computing system by training a neural network using training data, the training data including at least one of user inefficiency data, error data, or transaction data); determining a user’s identify and subsequently generating a competency baseline (e.g., “determining an identity of a user using an authentication system; generating . . . a competency baseline using historical data associated with the user, the competency baseline based at least partly on a level of training and amount of user experience”); capturing data (e.g., capturing intervention data using one or more sensors of an interactive interface computing system . . . the one or more sensors including a microphone, an imager, and a touchscreen sensor); transmitting data (e.g., “transmitting the intervention data to the intervention system”); detecting an intervention event (e.g., “detecting, by the intervention computing system using the trained neural network, an intervention event in connection with user activity of the user involving the cash management system from the intervention data in real time); determining the state of the intervention event (e.g., “determining the intervention event is a new action based on the competency baseline, the determining including: comparing a number of previous occurrences of the user activity being performed with an intervention threshold; and determining the intervention event is the new action when the number is less than the intervention threshold); generating customized information/content (e.g., “generating, by the intervention computing system using the trained neural network and the intervention data, output data, the output data including a customized intervention particular to the intervention event, the identity of the user, and the competency baseline when the intervention event is determined to be the new action”); transmitting content (e.g., “transmitting the customized intervention to the interactive interface computing system for presentation to the user”); generating and transmitting a first command to cash management system (e.g., generating a first command by the intervention computing system; transmitting the first command to the cash management system to cause the cash management system to transition from the transactional mode in response to determining the intervention event is the new action using the intervention data captured in real-time, the first command causing the cash management system to process one or more transactions that are not accounted for as a site transaction); generating and transmitting a second command to the cash management system (e.g., “generating a second command by the intervention computing system based on input data received in response to the customized intervention; transmitting the first command to the cash management system to cause the cash management system to transition to the transactional mode and allow performance of the new action”) etc.
However, the claimed additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional elements are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Although each of the claims recites at least one sensor that can be a touchscreen, a microphone or an imager, the sensor(s) is used merely for data gathering purpose; and therefore, this corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
In addition, per the original disclosure, the current claimed invention is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the disclosure describes a computer system (FIG 5, label “500”), which is utilized to implement the various systems and methods of the current invention; and wherein this
computer system encompasses a conventional computer, which includes commercially available conventional devices—such as, personal computers, laptops, mobile phones, tablets, etc. (see specification: [0056] to [0059]). Thus, the claimed additional elements are directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art.
Note also that the use of one or more well-known algorithms, such as a trained neural network, to detect—from activity data collected regarding a user—one or more issues or errors (i.e., an intervention event); and subsequently generating one or more pertinent training materials to the user, etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2010/0299314; US 2006/0256953, etc.).
The observation above confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-19 and 21). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Thus, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the RCE filed on 11/26/2025, which includes the response filed on 10/27/2025). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, regarding prong-one of Step 2A, Applicant asserts, “the claims are not 'directed to' any purported abstract ideas in light of MPEP § 2106.04(a) . . . the recited features in the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Indeed, a human could not perform the relationships of the structural features mentally . . . The recited claim features are not related to any of the enumerated methods of organizing any human activity . . . the claimed features, as a whole, are directed to a specific improvements for cash management system operation ‘to improve the efficiency of the operation of the system.’ Applicant's Specification, at para. [0051]. For instance, the claimed features improve cash management system operation by allowing for the identification of a user, determining the user is performing a new action, and transitioning to system out of a transactional mode when the new action is determined to prevent the possibility of a misuse of the cash management system” (emphasis added).
However, as an initial matter, Applicant does not appear to properly apply the eligibility inquiry per prong-one of Step 2A. For instance, the inquiry per prong-one does not require one to consider the claimed computer-elements, which are part of the additional elements. Instead, prong-one of Step 2A requires one to identify the limitations that recite a judicial exception (e.g., the abstract idea) (see MPEP 2106.07(a), emphasis added),
For Step 2A Prong One, the rejection should identify the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception. For example, if the claim is directed to an abstract idea, the rejection should identify the abstract idea as it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is an abstract idea.
In contrast, Applicant appears to rely on the claimed computer-elements in an attempt to challenge the Office’s findings presented under prong-one of Step 2A. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. This is because none of the computer-elements is part of the abstract idea identified per prong-one of Step 2A.
Thus, when evaluating two of the sub-groupings; namely, the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, the eligibility test does not require one to consider any of the computer-elements (which includes the computer structures). Instead, one has to consider just the limitations that recite the abstract idea in order to determine whether one or more of the limitations recite a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, etc. For instance, considering claim 1 as example, a human—such as an instructor—can determine mentally (and/or using a pen and paper) the identity of the user (e.g., by collecting—verbally or using a pen and paper—information from the user; comparing the collected information against an official record in a catalog, etc.). Of course, once acquiring the user’s identity as above, the instructor can also generate—using a pen and paper—a competency baseline related to the user by evaluating one or more parameters, including: historical data, a level of training, a level of user experience, etc.
Accordingly, as quite evident from the exemplary analysis above, none of the computer-elements (i.e., the additional elements) is being considered when applying the eligibility test per prong-one of Step 2A.
Similarly, when considering certain methods of organizing human activity; namely, managing personal behavior (e.g., teaching), the user is presented with a training material, i.e., a customized intervention, once it is determined that the user is attempting to accomplish a task that is new to the user. In particular, once the user’s identity is verified, the user’s competency baseline is determined using collected information (e.g., historical data, level of training, and level of experience) and accordingly, as the user is attempting to accomplish a particular task, such as a particular transaction, the user’s activity/action is evaluated in order to determine whether the above particular task is new to the user (e.g., by determining whether the number of previous occurrences of the particular task, which the user is currently attempting to accomplish, is below a set threshold); and accordingly, if that particular task above is determined to be new to the user, then the user is presented with a customized intervention, which is indeed a training material (e.g., guidance regarding how to perform the task, see [0027] of the specification, etc.), before the user starts to actually perform the particular task, etc.
Accordingly, here also it is evident from the analysis above that the test, per prong-one of Step 2A, does not require one to consider any of the computer-elements. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Although the issue relates to prong-two of Step 2A, Applicant also appears to be mistaking the skill improvement, which the user is acquiring due to the customized intervention, for a technological improvement. For instance, after completing a given training (i.e., the customized intervention), the user may be able to efficiently operate the cash management system (e.g., the user may be able to correctly accomplish, within a reasonable amount of time, a given transaction without making significant mistakes, etc.). However, the above has nothing to do with a technological improvement relevant to the system itself (e.g., no improvement in terms of the efficiency of the system itself, etc.). Instead, the above is demonstrating the skill improvement (if any) that the user is achieving; and improved skill allows the user to properly operate/use the cash management system. In this regard, even a human—such as an instructor—can teach the user how to operate/use the system. Of course, once acquiring the training (i.e., the customized intervention) from the instructor, the user would be able to correctly accomplish, within a reasonable amount of time, a given transaction without making significant mistakes. Thus, neither Applicant’s arguments, nor the section (i.e., [0051]) that Applicant has identified from the specification, demonstrates a technological improvement.
In addition, based on one’s perspective, one may conclude that the claimed (and the disclosed) procedure, namely the process of presenting a customized intervention to the user, causes the cash management system (e.g., an ATM, or a self-checkout device; see [0017]) to be inefficient. This is because the system is resorting to the presentation of a customized intervention to the user, as opposed to proceeding directly to the actual transaction. Accordingly, the above increases the total amount of time that the user is spending on the device (e.g., the ATM, or the self-checkout device, etc.). Although the customized intervention (i.e., the training) may help the user to correctly perform the actual transaction, the above inefficiency is significant particularly when there are multiple customers who are waiting in line to use the ATM or the self-checkout device.
Nevertheless, regardless of the different types of perspectives that one may consider, improving the skill of the user via a customized intervention has nothing to do with a technological improvement. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Secondly, regarding prong-two of Step 2A, Applicant asserts that “the present claims integrate any purported abstract ideas into a practical application by improving techniques ‘to improve the efficiency of the operation of the system.’ Applicant's Specification, at para. [0051]. For instance, the claimed features, when taken as a whole, improve cash management system operation by allowing for the identification of a user, determining the user is performing a new action using an intervention computing system and a trained neural network, and transitioning to system out of a transactional mode when the new action is determined to prevent erroneous operation of the cash management system. This is a technical problem arising from the modern technology field of trained neural network or other deep learning or artificial intelligence techniques. Here, the claims recite the intervention computing system, the interactive interface computing system, and the cash management system operating in a purposeful arrangement to achieve a technological solution for processing data in real time using a trained neural network to detect user's competencies through user interaction with the cash management system and preventing processing of funds for a site transaction based on the user's competencies” (emphasis modified).
However, once again Applicant is mistaking the skill improvement, which the user is acquiring as a result of the customized intervention, for a technological improvement. In contrast, as already pointed out above, the claimed/disclosed process of providing a user with a relevant training, which improves the user’s skill to efficiently operate a cash management system (e.g., an ATM, or a self-checkout device, etc.), does not constitute a technological improvement. This is once again because no technological improvement is being achieved with respect to the system itself. Note also that the claimed/disclosed system does not provide the customized intervention to the user if the user already recognizes the proper way to use/operate the cash management system (e.g., if the user is an experienced one, or the user has learnt the steps from an instructor, etc.). In contrast, a patent-eligible technological improvement is a technological feature(s) that advances the functioning of the system regardless of the skill level of the user who is operating the system. For instance, consider the method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning. Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, 879 F.3d 1299, 1304, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, contrary to such patent-eligible implementation, neither Applicant’s arguments nor the specification (including [0051]) demonstrates any technological improvement over the relevant existing technology.
Of course, the same is true regarding the neural network that the claimed (and the disclosed) system is utilizing. In particular, it is part of the existing computer/network technology to utilize one or more machine-learning and/or artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to analyze collected data and generate one or more pertinent results. Thus, utilizing such algorithms to learn one or more attributes related to a user (e.g., training one or more neural networks using information that relates to a user, etc.), including identifying one or more pertinent results in real-time based on the analysis of newly collected data regarding the user (e.g., determining, based on analyzing data that relates to the user’s current activity, that the user is incorrectly performing the current task, or the current task is new to the user, etc.), does not constitute a technological improvement. This is because the above is demonstrating the use of the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea in a desired field or environment. Thus, even if the claimed/disclosed procedure, which provides the user with a customized intervention based on the analysis the user’s actions, may be beneficial since it helps the user to understand the proper way to use/operate the system, the above still has nothing to do with providing a technological improvement. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are once again not persuasive.
Note that Applicant’s attempt to correlate the current claims with Claims 2 and 3 of Example 35 of the USPTO are also not persuasive. In particular, unlike Applicant’s vague assertion, the eligibility of Claims 2 and 3 of Example 35 is not based on the alleged “practical implementation”, which relies on “identification of a user for allowing a transaction to occur” (emphasis added). In fact, Applicant appears to be referring to a single layer of authentication (e.g., identifying the user via a username and/or a password), as opposed to an authentication scheme that implements an advanced technology. In contrast, as evident from the explanation presented in the USPTO guidance (also the office-action dated 08/27/2025), claim 2 of Example 35 is considered to be patent-eligible due to the combination of the limitations regarding: “obtaining customer‐specific information from a bank card, a processor comparing data, generating a random code and transmitting it to the customer’s mobile communication device, and the processor reading an image that was generated by the customer’s mobile communication device in response to receipt of the random code, where the image includes encrypted code data. The encrypted code data from the image is then used by the processor to verify the customer’s identity by decrypting the code data and analyzing the decrypted code data” (emphasis added). The implementation above is considered to be beyond the conventional technic for identifying the identity of a user/customer at an ATM.
Similarly, again as evident from the explanation presented in the USPTO guidance, Claim 3 of Example 35 is considered to be patent-eligible due to the combination of the limitations regarding: the ATM providing a random code; the user’s mobile device generating—in response to the random code above—a customer confirmation code; the ATM’s process of sending—responsive to the analysis of the confirmation code—a control signal to provide/prevent access to the keypad of the ATM, etc. In particular, the combination of the above arrangement—per Step 2B—is considered to be beyond a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art. This is again because the conventional verification process does not incorporate such advanced arrangement.
The observations above confirm that neither the current claims nor the original disclosure as a whole is analogous to any of the patent-eligible examples presented in the USPTO guidance.
Thirdly, regarding Step 2B, Applicant is asserting that “the claims contain elements that, when considered in combination, amount to ’significantly more’ than the alleged judicial exceptions because they are more than conventional and generic arrangement of known, conventional elements . . . even if the claims at hand recite components that individually perform generic functions, as the Office asserts (which Applicant does not concede), these elements, when considered in combination with the other elements of the claim, amount to ‘significantly more.’ The claims recite the intervention computing system, the interactive interface computing system, and the cash management system as operating in a purposeful arrangement to achieve a technological solution in the trained neural network or other deep learning or artificial intelligence techniques space by preventing processing of funds as a site transaction based on the identified user and intervention data. When considered as a whole, the steps recited in the claims amount to significantly more than the purported abstract idea” (emphasis added).
However, unlike Applicant’s assumption, the Office’s analysis, under Step 2B, is not based merely on the consideration of the individual functions that the individual components are performing. Instead, the Office’s finding is based on the consideration of the claim as a whole. Accordingly, Applicant is mischaracterizing the Office’s analysis. Moreover, again unlike Applicant’s assertion, none of the claims is analogous to Amdocs. In particular, Amdocs is directed to methods and products for using distributed network architecture to reduce congestion in billing/accounting systems of network service providers; namely, the implementation of a distributed architecture that reduces congestion in network (enhancing data in a distributed fashion), thereby eliminating the need for massive databases due to massive record flows (i.e. Amdocs provides an unconventional technical solution to a technological problem). In contrast, neither Applicant’s current claims nor Applicant’s originally disclosed method/system implements any element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement. Instead, as already pointed out above, Applicant’s claimed and disclosed method/system is utilizing the existing computer/network technology, merely as a tool, to facilitate an abstract idea; such as, providing the user with a customized intervention, which is itself a training, based on the analysis of the user’s actions, etc. Of course, such customized intervention may improve the user’s skill, so that the user would be able to efficiently operate a cash management system (e.g., after taking the training, the user would be able to use/operate an ATM machine—or a self-checkout device—without making significant errors, etc.). However, such process of improving the user’s skill once again does not necessarily imply a technological improvement. Moreover, when the claimed (and disclosed) method/system is considered as a whole, it is directed to the conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements (e.g., the conventional Internet technology, etc.).
So far, except for simply listing the various computer component and/or functions currently recited (e.g., the intervention computing system, the interactive interface computing system, and the cash management system, the trained neural network or other deep learning or artificial intelligence techniques, etc.), Applicant still fails to address the fundamental issues discussed above, which determine the patent-eligibility of a claim that recites a judicial exception. Consequently, Applicant’s conclusory assertion, “[w]hen considered as a whole, the steps recited in the claims amount to significantly more than the purported abstract idea”, is not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts that “the claims do not seek to preempt or tie up the purported abstract idea to which the Office asserts the claim is directed. To the contrary, there are numerous ways in which others may perform the purported abstract idea not recited in the claims. Finally, the claimed features are not widely prevalent or in common use. Thus, the claims do not recite well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. This is evidenced by a lack of a prior art rejection.” (emphasis added).
However, unlike Applicant’s assertion, the eligibility test is not confined to a claim that attempts to preempt—or monopolize—a judicial exception(s). In addition, as already discussed in the previous office-action, the courts do not use preemption as a stand-alone test for eligibility even though the Supreme Court has described the concern driving the judicial exceptions as preemption (see MPEP 2106.04(1), emphasis added),
While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a
standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect,
Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead,
questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework
from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps
2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120
USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom,
Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is
necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a
preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does
not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-
92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) ("We rejected in Flook the argument
that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted,
the claim should be eligible for patent protection").
Thus, Applicant’s assertion above is not sufficient to demonstrate whether any of the current claims is “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Moreover, again unlike Applicant’s assertion, the use of the conventional Internet technology to facilitate one or more activities, including one or more training and/or transaction activities, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (hereinafter WRCA) in the art. It is important to note that the WRCA test, which is the inquiry per Step 2B, is evaluating the technology—but not the new abstract idea—that the claim is reciting.
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that none of the current claims implements an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 1, 3-5, 7, 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b), or second paragraph (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “transmitting the first command to the cash management system to cause the cash management system to transition from the transactional mode in response to determining the intervention event is the new action using the intervention data captured in real-time, the first command causing the cash management system to process one or more transactions that are not accounted for as a site transaction” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the above limitation is attempting to imply that the cash management system is transitioning from the transaction mode to the first command (so that it starts processing one or more transactions that are not accounted for as a site transaction). In particular, it is unclear whether the limitation above is considering the “first command” as one of the modes of the cash management system.
Accordingly, at least for the reason above, claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8 and 10-14 are ambiguous.
Prior Art.
6. Considering each of claims 1, 15 and 20 as a whole (including the respective dependent claims), the prior art does not teach or suggest the current claims (regarding the state of the prior art, see the office-action dated 02/13/2025).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715