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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 8/28/2025.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a process (Claim 1 and 11), and a system (Claim 19).
Claim 1 and 11 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 19 recites a payment system (system), which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Claim 1 recites receiving real-time data associated with transactions and media of a first transaction; calculating patterns for the first transaction and the media from the real-time data; providing the patterns as input features to a machine-learning model (MLM); receiving, as output from the MLM, a media baseline that identifies a total media amount per denomination of the media to configure the first transaction with, wherein the media baseline is optimized by the MLM based on media metrics associated with the first transaction and second transaction; and providing the media baseline for the first transaction to a user, or a service to manage a planned media activity for the first transaction associated with replenishing the media or removing excess media; and optimizing, by the MLM, the media baseline to minimize future media activities on the first transaction while also maintaining a minimum total media volume for others of a store as a whole at a requested point in time, wherein the media baseline is calculated dynamically and in real time for the first transaction terminal for a point in time when requested based on conditions being experienced at the first transaction terminal and the second transaction terminals of the store. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, via manual human activity, or mathematical concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, more specifically, the limitations are commercial interactions, specifically sales activities or business relations. Also, the claims are managing interactions between people, specifically following rules or instructions. For mathematical concepts, the machine learning calculations and optimization is just mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. The recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a first transaction terminal, a second transaction terminal, other terminals, a user interface, and a system. The additional elements of a first transaction terminal, a second transaction terminal, other terminals, a user interface, and a system, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a first transaction terminal, a second transaction terminal, other terminals, a user interface, and a system) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites wherein receiving further includes obtaining the real-time data responsive to a request received for the media baseline of the first transaction terminal. T These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the first transaction terminal are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites wherein receiving further includes obtaining the real-time data at a preconfigured interval of time. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein calculating further includes calculating a first pattern from the real-time data as a transaction rate for the transactions processed by the first transaction terminal during a current interval of time. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the first transaction terminal are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein calculating further includes calculating a second pattern from the real-time data as a media usage rate for the media based on media payments and card payments associated with the transactions during the current interval of time. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein calculating further includes calculating third patterns from the real-time data, each third pattern corresponding to a specific denomination usage rate for the media during the current interval of time and a current remaining level of the corresponding denomination stored at the first transaction terminal. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the first transaction terminal are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein calculating further includes obtaining statuses for the first transaction terminal and the second transaction terminals from the real-time data. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the first and the second transaction terminal are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites wherein obtaining further includes calculating a total media level of the media stored at the first transaction terminal and the second transaction terminals. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the first and second transaction terminals are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein providing the patterns further includes providing the statuses and the total media level as additional input features to the MLM. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 10 recites wherein receiving further includes optimizing, by the MLM, the media baseline based on a first media metric that minimizes future media activities on the first transaction terminal and a second media metric that minimizes the total media level of media stored at the first transaction terminal and the second transaction terminals. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the first and second transaction terminals are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 11 recites calculating, transaction rates, media usage rates, and media denomination usage rates over a given interval of time from historical terminal data; identifying, statuses, media activities, and media event errors from the historical terminal data for the given interval of time; identifying total media levels for the terminals from the historical terminal data for the given interval of time; labeling the transaction rates, the media usage rates, the media denomination rates, the statuses, the total media levels, the media activities, and the media event errors for the given interval of time in a training data set; iterating to the calculating for a next interval of time until a preconfigured number of intervals are included in the training data set; training a machine-learning model (MLM) on a first portion of the training data set to use as input labeled transaction rates, the media usage rates, labeled media denomination usage rates, labeled statuses, the labeled total media levels and to produce as media baselines as output, each media baseline predicted based on minimizing labeled media activities, labeled media event errors, and the total media levels; testing the MLM in predicting the media baselines on a second portion of the training data set; and processing the MLM during a current interval of time on real-time terminal data based on results of the testing and providing current media baselines; an training the MLM to provided predicted media baselines that minimize media activities at a same time minimizing a total media volume for an enterprise as a whole. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, via manual human activity, or mathematical concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, more specifically, the limitations are commercial interactions, specifically sales activities or business relations. Also, the claims are managing interactions between people, specifically following rules or instructions. For mathematical concepts, the machine learning calculations and optimization is just mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. The recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a terminal, plurality of terminals, and each terminal. The additional elements of a terminal, plurality of terminals, and each terminal, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a terminal, plurality of terminals, and each terminal) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 12 recites providing the method as a software-as-a-service to a retail service or a retail system associated with a retailer or a financial institution. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of software-as-a-service and retail system are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 13 recites providing the current media baselines through an application programming interface to a service. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of API are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of application programming interface (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application). Further, the additional element of application programming interface in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions generally linking the use of API to the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions generally linking the use of API to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claim does not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 14 recites providing the current media baselines through a user interface to a user. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of user interface are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 15 recites providing the current media baselines through a dashboard service associated with a dashboard. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of dashboard service are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 16 recites wherein identifying the statuses further includes identifying conditions during which the plurality of terminals were operational, non-operational, and accepting card payments only as the statuses. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of plurality of terminals are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 17 recites wherein identifying the media event errors further include identifying conditions during which the plurality of terminals were non- operational due to a shortage of the media and an overflow of the media as the media event errors. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of plurality of terminals are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein identifying the media activities further include identifying conditions during which the plurality of terminals were scheduled for a cash-in-transit service provider, were visited by a cash-in-transit service provider, were replenished with the media, and were serviced to remove excess media as the media activities. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and the additional elements of plurality of terminals are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 11 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 19 recites training, a machine- learning model (MLM) on media events, media usage rates, media denomination usage rates, transaction rates, media service activities, and total media volume levels as a whole within intervals of time to produce predicted media baselines that minimize, future media events, future media service activities, and a corresponding total media volume level; receiving a request at a current interval of time; obtaining real-time terminal data; calculating for the current interval of time from the real-time terminal data current media events, a current media usage rate, a current media denomination usage rate, a current transaction rate, current media service activities, and a current total media volume as current input features; providing the current input features to the MLM as input; receiving as output from the MLM a current predicted media baseline that provides amounts of media for each denomination that is to include with a next media service activity to minimize an additional media service activity following the next media service activity, to minimize additional media events following the next media service activity, and to minimize a current media volume total and the remaining ones as a whole; providing the current predicted media baseline responsive to the request to a service for managing a planned media service activity associated with replenishing with the media or removing excess media; and optimizing, by the MLM, a media baseline based on two target metrics: 1) minimizing media activities and 2) minimizing a total media value that is being held of a store. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, via manual human activity, or mathematical concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, more specifically, the limitations are commercial interactions, specifically sales activities or business relations. Also, the claims are managing interactions between people, specifically following rules or instructions. For mathematical concepts, the machine learning calculations and optimization is just mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. The recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of cloud server, processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, terminal, plurality of terminals, given terminal, remaining ones of the plurality of terminals, user interface, system, and all terminals. The additional elements of a cloud server, processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, terminal, plurality of terminals, given terminal, remaining ones of the plurality of terminals, user interface, system, and all terminals, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (cloud server, processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, terminal, plurality of terminals, given terminal, remaining ones of the plurality of terminals, user interface, system, and all terminals) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 20 recites wherein the terminals comprise point-of-sale (POS) terminals, self-service terminals (SSTs), automated teller machines (ATMs), or any combination of the POS terminals, the SSTs, and the ATMs. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 19, and the additional elements of POS terminals, SST terminals, and automated teller machines are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 19 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 19, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues USPTO July 2024 AI Guidance, in that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, that the claims are to be analyzed “as a whole,” and that the claims reflect technology improvements. Examiner disagrees.
Regarding Applicants arguments (Pg. 9), the claims are directed to an abstract idea. As applicants’ own specification points out (Para 2-3), the cash management system involves different parties between a customer and a business, which is a form of “business relations” and “sales activities.” An example of a claim reciting business relations is found in Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The business relation at issue in Credit Acceptance is the relationship between a customer and dealer when processing a credit application to purchase a vehicle. The patentee claimed a "system for maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer’s inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user." 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of "processing an application for financing a loan" and found "no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice" and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. Other examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors include: structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009); using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 485, 203 USPQ 812, 816 (CCPA 1979); and offer-based price optimization, which pertains to marketing, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claim limitations are also managing personal behavior, and following rules or instructions. An example of a claim reciting managing personal behavior is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)”, which “is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity.” 792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640.
An example of a claim reciting following rules or instructions is In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “rules for playing games”, which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011.
Applicant also McCro and Enfish as reasons why the currently recited claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held the claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters" that previously could only be produced by human animators), and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. In contrast, the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem and are thus incomparable to the claims at issue in McRO.
In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer database elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Applicant also argues that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. Unlike Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (“Enfish”), where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts. Therefore, based on the similarity of the concept described in this claim to abstract idea identified by the courts, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: Yes). The court also emphasized that the "directed to" inquiry applies a filter to claims, when interpreted in view of the specification, based on whether their character as a whole is directed to a patent ineligible concept. The Federal Circuit cautioned against describing a claim at a high level of abstraction untethered from the language of the claim when determining the focus of the claimed invention.
Further, in Enfish, the court asked whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database), or instead on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. To make the determination of whether these claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer technology, the court looked to the teachings of the specification. Specifically, the court identified the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements.
The Federal Circuit in Enfish stated that certain claims directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software, are not necessarily abstract (Step 2A). The court specifically noted that some improvements in computer-related technology, such as chip architecture or an LED display, when appropriately claimed, are undoubtedly not abstract. Explaining that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware can, the court noted that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, also are not inherently abstract.
In Enfish, the Court held the claims patent eligible under § 101. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In that case, the court explained, “the first step in the Alice inquiry … asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities … or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1335–36. In an answering “first step,” the Court looked to whether the specification disparaged the prior art and concluded it did. Id. The specification in Enfish taught that the self-referential table functioned differently than conventional database structures by disparaging traditional databases such as “those that follow the relational model and those that follow the object oriented model.” Id. at 1337. Enfish also explained that current databases require a programmer to predefine a structure and, subsequent data entry must conform to that predefined structure. Id. However, the database of Enfish did not require “a programmer to preconfigure a structure to which a user must adapt data entry.” Id. Further, the court’s conclusion that the claims were directed to an improvement of an existing technology was bolstered (not solely determined) by the specification’s teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Id. The Enfish court reasoned “[t]he specification's disparagement of conventional data structures, combined with language describing the ‘present invention’ as including the features that make up a self-referential table, confirm that our characterization of the ‘invention’ for purposes of the § 101 analysis has not been deceived by the ‘draftsman's art.’ In other words, we are not faced with a situation where general-purpose computer components are added post-hoc to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation. Rather, the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.” Id. at 1339.
More importantly, regarding the currently recited claims, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicant also argues regarding the machine learning model, given the use of real-time dynamic optimization. However, the MLM is simply using mathematical concepts to achieve its intended purpose for a method of organizing human activity.
The currently recited claims recite how a typical machine learning model works, using specific attributes and parameters. However, the claims do not describe any particular improvement in the manner of computer functions. Although a machine learning model is used for the purposes of determining cash management between parties, such uses is both generic and conventional. The object of the claims is to determine cash management between parties, not to produce technology enabling a machine learning model to operate. The claims call for generic use of such a machine learning model in the manner such models conventionally operate. Simply reciting a particular technological module or piece of equipment in a claim does not confer eligibility. The MPEP notes this distinction.
The MPEP notes this distinction (For example, in MPEP 2106.05(f)(I), it states: Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743). In the instant application, the currently recited claims use machine learning as generic data processing.
Applicant also argues that the claims are significantly more as they recite an unconventional technical solution, and provide technical benefits by “minimizing future media activities on the corresponding terminal while also maintaining a minimum total media volume for the store’s terminals as a whole at a requested point in time” (Applicant arguments, pg. 8). Applicant then recites Bascom. Bascom relates to translating multiple filters attached to client-side devices to a single filter on the server-side device to filter information request based on requestor’s profile. However, the steps in the current claims are purely business interaction that can be achieve on a face-to-face level or over the telephone or over generic network environment. This is purely a commercial interaction under the certain methods of organizing human activity.
Lastly, applicant argues that the amended claims align with recent USPTO guidance (Pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that the guidance for 101 has not changed, and the memo was sent out as a reminder. Examiner notes that the Ex Parte Desjardins decision (as well as the Director Squires’ memo) stressed the specification of application 16/319040, in that the specification was curing a deficiency in the way that normal AI functions, and their specific way of training the AI had an improvement in the AI; the decision had nothing to do with the data itself. In the currently recited claims, the “invention” is in the data itself, and it is using AI at a “high level” which amounts to “apply it,” where there is no curing any technical problem with the way AI functions, and is just using a different set of data. Thus, the application (and currently recited claims) are more like Recentive, than Ex Parte Desjardins.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crandall US 11315379 4/26/2022 G06K5/00 discloses a system for cash-till optimization with a minimum threshold for cash to be held at the register for different points in time, with different optimization parameters as model-agnostic, using a cash usage/utilization model (Block 506, Fig. 5), but fails to disclose a machine learning model that is dynamically trained to carry out the process of optimization for different terminals.
Mattison US 11334893 5/17/2022 G06Q20/3276 discloses an intelligent cash handling device with machine learning capability in the cash handling device (160) for retail stores, but fails to disclose the use of a dynamic, real-time machine learning model for minimization of cash at different retail locations.
Singh US 20230078916 03/16/2023 G06Q20/20 discloses a smart glass system to monitor cash activity for an ATM with an AI engine, but fails to disclose the use of a dynamic, real-time machine learning model for minimization of cash at different retail locations.
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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693