DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 12, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on June 12, 2025 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended; and Claims 2, 9, and 16 were previously canceled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1 and 3-7 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 8 and 10-14 are directed to a computer product (i.e., an article of manufacture), and claims 15 and 17-20 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. Prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1, 8, and 15, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The limitations of independent claim 1, which is representative of independent claims 8 and 15, have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The bold language of claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) as explained further below:
receive an executed action request associated with a dispute related to an execution action performed by a user of an automated teller machine on an executed action date at a previous time, wherein the executed action request comprises a request to obtain information relating to the executed action performed on the executed action date for resolving the dispute, wherein the information relating to the executed action is obtained via servicing the automated teller machine associated with the executed action;
determine a last service date for the automated teller machine associated with the executed action;
calculate a weightage for resolving the dispute associated with the executed action;
first compare the last service date for the automated teller machine associated with the executed action to the executed action date associated with the dispute;
based on the first comparison resulting in a determination that the last service date is before the executed action date: determine (i) a next scheduled service date for the automated teller machine and (ii) a predetermined service time period for responding to the executed action request for resolving the dispute based on the calculated weightage, and second compare the next scheduled service date for the automated teller machine to the predetermined service time for responding to the executed action request; and
based on the second comparison resulting in a determination that the next scheduled service date exceeds the predetermined service time period, cause a service action related to the automated teller machine to be executed.
The claimed invention is directed to abstract idea of providing and managing service maintenance to automated teller machine.
The bolded portions of limitations above recite concepts performable in the human mind including observation, evaluation, and judgement, which falls under “Mental Processes,” one of the abstract idea categories. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of “system comprising: at least one non-transitory storage device; and at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to” the claims 1 and 12 recite processes that are all acts that could be performed by a human, e.g., mentally or manually, using a pen and paper, without the need of a computer or any other machine. For example, person, using pen and paper or via oral communication, could receive an executed action request (based on broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification paragraph [0065], executed action request can be manual action performed by a person which includes physically check deposited or manually count cash balance of the ATM), wherein the executed action request comprises a request to obtain information relating to an executed action performed on an executed action date, wherein the information relating to the executed action is obtained via servicing an automated teller machine associated with the executed action; determine (e.g., observation, evaluation, and judgement,) a last service date for the automated teller machine associated with the executed action; compare (e.g., observation, evaluation, and judgement) the last service date for the automated teller machine associated with the executed action to the executed action date; and based on determining the last service date is before the executed action date; determine (e.g., observation, evaluation, and judgement,) that the next scheduled service date exceeds the predetermined service time period, cause a service action related to the automated teller machine to be executed. Further in view of dependent claims 3-4, the service action comprises a transmission of request for expedited servicing or update a service schedule of the automated teller machine. These are steps collecting and analyzing information to be delivered to a human servicer to perform service maintenance action. That is, human servicer has been responsible for gathering, organizing, and analyzing information by observation, evaluation, and judgement for scheduling service action for automated teller machine, before computers were available to support these tasks, because the maintenance industry has existed longer than computers. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally, the claim recites a process of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of “system comprising: at least one non-transitory storage device; and at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to” the steps of receiving executed action request information for servicing an automated teller machine, determining last service date for the automated teller machine, and compare the last service date and next schedule service date with requested executed action date, to cause an instruction to further request expedited servicing or update a service schedule. The above-mentioned steps are consistent with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and therefore the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the limitations [A]-[F] are considered as a single abstract idea, thus, the claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “system for providing an automated pull request using cross-channel communication, the system comprising: at least one non-transitory storage device; and at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to;”
Claim 8: “computer program product for providing an automated pull request using cross-channel communication, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable program code portions embodied therein, the computer-readable program code portions comprising;”
Claim 15: “computer-implemented method for providing an automated pull request using cross-channel communication;”
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to receive, determine, compare, and transmit information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0042]-[0062] and Figs. 1A-1C) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[F] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations of [A]-[E] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for managing maintenance service on ATM (see app. specification [0066]). Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims 1, 8, and 15. The claims recite the use of same additional element of the independent claim, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of transmitting a request information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims 1, 8, and 15. The claims further recite additional descriptive information regarding to the executed action request, which does not change abstract idea of the independent claim. No additional element is recited. The further detail of the claim limitation does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technology environment. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 6 and 13, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the claims 5 and 12. The claims further recite additional descriptive information regarding to the potential malfunction in the processing of the executed action, which does not change abstract idea of the independent claim. No additional element is recited. The further detail of the claim limitation does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technology environment. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 7, 14, and 20, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the claims 1, 8, and 15. The claims further recite additional descriptive information regarding to the executed action is a category of use of the automated teller machine, which does not change abstract idea of the independent claim. No additional element is recited. The further detail of the claim limitation does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technology environment. The claims are ineligible.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dryer et al. (US 20200357248 A1, hereinafter, “Dryer”) in view of Groschen et al. (US 20140156035 A1, hereinafter, “Groschen”).
Claims 1, 8, and 15, Dryer discloses a system, computer program product, and computer-implemented method for providing an automated pull request using cross-channel communication, the system (Abstract: system) comprising:
at least one non-transitory storage device (para. [0031]: memory); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to (para. [0040], “a processor 510 communicably coupled to such devices as a memory 52”):
receive an executed action request associated with a dispute related to an execution action performed by a suer of an automated teller machine on an executed action date at a previous time, wherein the executed action request comprises a request to obtain information relating to the executed action performed on the executed action date for resolving the dispute, wherein the information relating to the executed action is obtained via servicing an automated teller machine associated with the executed action (para. [0050] and [0058]-[0059] disclosing the communicating (transmitting) information of the automated teller machine is running low on items or experiencing mechanical issue and prompt the maintenance provider to verify which is representative of an executed action request to obtain information relating to an executed action performed on an executed action date (which is previously scheduled maintenance to verify mechanical issue, replenish, or misplacement at current time));
determine a last service date for the automated teller machine associated with the executed action (para. [0050] disclosing monthly pre-scheduled maintenance, which is the service performed at a date on monthly basis associated with maintenance, including last service date of the month and scheduled maintenance of next month);
first compare the last service date for the automated teller machine associated with the executed action to the executed action date (para. [0055] disclosing “the automated machine 400 may also validate the maintenance provider based on comparing current time and the scheduled time of appointment” The office asserts “scheduled time of appointment” is interpreted to be last scheduled service date based on monthly pre-scheduled maintenance);
Dryer discloses providing maintenance by comparing current time with previously scheduled time of appointment, including monthly pre-schedule maintenance which understanding when was last maintenance was performed and next maintenance is scheduled. However, Dryer does not expressly teach the language of comparing last service date and next scheduled service with a predetermined service time period to cause a service action to be executed/performed.
That is, Dryer fails to expressly teach the limitation,
calculate a weightage for resolving the dispute associated with the executed action;
based on the first comparison resulting in a determination that the last service date is before the executed action date: determine (i) a next scheduled service date for the automated teller machine and (ii) a predetermined service time period for responding to the executed action request for resolving the dispute based on the calculated weightage, and second compare the next scheduled service date for the automated teller machine to the predetermined service time for responding to the executed action request; based on the second comparison resulting in a determination that the next scheduled service date exceeds the predetermined service time period, cause a service action related to the automated teller machine to be executed.
Nonetheless, Groschen is in similar system and method for providing schedule maintenance, which specifically teaches,
calculate a weightage for resolving the dispute associated with the executed action (para. [0034]-[0035] teaches the system uses the machine error data to determine whether the machine error is urgent or non-urgent. This determination of urgency is analogous to calculating a weightage or priority level for the service needed);
based on the first comparison resulting in a determination that the last service date is before the executed action date: determine (i) a next scheduled service date for the automated teller machine and (ii) a predetermined service time period for responding to the executed action request for resolving the dispute based on the calculated weightage, and second compare the next scheduled service date for the automated teller machine to the predetermined service time for responding to the executed action request; based on the second comparison resulting in a determination that the next scheduled service date exceeds the predetermined service time period, cause a service action related to the automated teller machine to be executed (This is taught in para. [0031]-[0035]. Specifically in para. [0032] determines whether the previously scheduled service call date is appropriated based on scheduled criteria. In para. [0033] teaches the extent the calculated date is before or after the next scheduled service date by more than a threshold amount of time, the offsite computer considers the rescheduling criteria to be met and adjusts or reschedules the scheduled service date closer to the calculated date. The determining of the calculated date is before the scheduled service date is making a determination of comparing the current schedule date with last service date. The determination of the calculated date (i.e., date of failure and service should be performed) is after the threshold amount of time, which is representative of next scheduled service date exceeds the predetermined service time period, and reschedule should be performed. This is consistent with the applicant’s specification in paragraphs [0069], “the comparison of the last service date for the automated teller machine associated with the executed action to the executed action date includes determining whether the last service date for the ATM was before or after the executed action date. In an instance in which the last service date was before the executed action date, then a service has not been completed since the executed action and therefore, a service of the ATM is needed to obtain the information relating to the executed action.” [0070] “Referring now to Block 208 of FIG. 2, the method includes causing a service action related to the automated teller machine to be executed based on determining the last service date is before the executed action date. In an instance in which the ATM has not be serviced since the executed action date, the system is configured to either determine the next scheduled service or schedule a new service.” [0071], “the service action may include determining the next service date for the automated teller machine associated with the executed action and comparing the next service date with the predetermined amount of time that a service is requested (e.g., if a service is recommended within 5 days and the next service date is in 3 days, the previously scheduled service may be maintained). For example, a review of a dispute may need to be completed within a certain number of days and therefore, as long as the next scheduled service occurs within the review time period, no new service would need to be scheduled.” In Groschen para. [0035] states the system will reschedule a service call at an earlier date if the machine… error data shows an urgent error. This links the urgency (i.e., weightage) to the scheduling action which an urgent error must be serviced sooner than a non-urgent one).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system, method, and computer product of Dryer for scheduling service maintenance for ATM based on executed action request such as machine malfunction to be executed to include the feature of comparing last and next scheduled service date to be before and after the executed action date of the scheduled service, to reschedule a service call at a closer date as taught by Groschen for the motivation of avoiding an undesirable period of time lapses between the time the owner determines that service is needed and the time the onsite service call actually occurs. This causes unwanted machine downtime that can be costly (para. [0004]).
Claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Dryer and Groschen make obvious of the system of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 8, and the method of claim 15. Groschen further teaches,
wherein the service action is transmission of a request for servicing of the automated teller machine within a predetermined number of days (Para. [0036] “Once the offsite computer either reschedules the service call at step 330 or keeps the previously scheduled service call at step 335, the offsite computer then determines whether the scheduled service call is scheduled to take place very soon, such as within a set time period. The set time period can be a time period such as within 3 months, within 1 month, within 2 weeks or perhaps within 1 week. If the service call is not scheduled to take place within the set time period, the offsite computer prompts the process to start over again at step 315. However, if the service call is scheduled to take place within the set time period,” wherein the within the set time period is representative of servicing within a predetermined number of days).
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Dryer with/and the teachings of Groschen are presented in the examining of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and incorporated herein.
Claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of Dryer and Groschen make obvious of the system of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 8, and the method of claim 15. Groschen further teaches,
wherein the service action is a transmission of a request to update a service schedule of the automated teller machine (para. [0032]-[0036] teach the request to reschedule which is representative of request to update a service schedule).
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Dryer with/and the teachings of Groschen are presented in the examining of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and incorporated herein.
Claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Dryer and Groschen make obvious of the system of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 8, and the method of claim 15. Dryer further discloses,
wherein the executed action request is based on a potential malfunction in a processing of the executed action by the automated teller machine (para. [0058]-[0059] disclosing ATM identifies misplacement of the item and mechanical issue, creating an executed action request to prompt the maintenance provider to verify/inspect the misplacement of ATM).
Claims 7, 14, and 20, the combination of Dryer and Groschen make obvious of the system of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 8, and the method of claim 15. Dryer further discloses,
wherein the executed action is a category of usage of the automated teller machine, wherein the category of usage is one of a check deposit or a cash deposit (para. [0058]-[0059] disclosing the usage of ATM for cash deposit and check deposit. Then the ATM identifies misplacement of the item and mechanical issue, creating an executed action request to prompt the maintenance provider to verify the misplacement).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dryer et al. (US 20200357248 A1, hereinafter, “Dryer”) in view of Groschen et al. (US 20140156035 A1, hereinafter, “Groschen”) and further in view of Moore (US 10685537 B1).
Claims 6 and 13, the combination of Dryer and Groschen make obvious of the system of claim 5 and the computer program product of claim 12. However, the combination fails to expressly teach,
wherein the potential malfunction in the processing of the executed action by the automated teller machine is a photographic processing error of the automated teller machine. (Moore,
Nonetheless, Moore is in the similar field of system and method for servicing an automated teller machine, which explicitly teaches,
wherein the potential malfunction in the processing of the executed action by the automated teller machine is a photographic processing error of the automated teller machine (Moore, claim 18 and Col. 3 ln. 19 -67 teaches transmitting malfunction error of the ATM includes technical issues relates to deposit box. The transmitted error codes and video data which is representative of photographic processing error of the automated teller machine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system, computer product, and method of Dryer for scheduling service maintenance for ATM based on executed action request such as machine malfunction to include the additional information of wherein the potential malfunction in the processing of the executed action by the automated teller machine is a photographic processing error of the automated teller machine, which is taught by Moore for the motivation of providing the best option for technician to fully understand the technical issue with error code and photographic information that would enable the technician to quickly and efficiently fix the problem with the ATM (Col. 1 ln, 28-54).
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
On pages 8-10, the Applicant asserts the claims are similar to Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (January 2019).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Claims and the Specification do not provide any specific technological details for converting information from one format to another format; real-time communication coordinating multiple ATM subsystems; nor automatically trigger physical servicing. The claims are directed to providing information for request to service check automated machine that is performed by user/technician.
On page 10 of the remarks, the Applicant asserts the system provides technical solution in “reducing network traffic and load on existing computer resources.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
That is, as reflected in Enfish, there is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements (improvement of the technology or technical field), on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task (receive, compare, and determine information), on the other. The alleged advantages that the Applicant touts do not concern an improvement to computer capabilities or any machinery but instead relate to an alleged improvement in transmitting, analyzing, and determining information for a desirable result, which a computer is used as a mere tool in its ordinary capacity, see MPEP 2106.05(f). To further clarify, the computer system and components to perform the abstract idea of managing maintenance service, itself is merely used “applied” for the expected result of convenience and time/cost saving. The claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology of the computer functionalities other than, by using the additional elements of the computer system, desired result can be produced without a doubt and concern to the technological details for how it is done. That is, the computer system itself or specific technology is not improved in anyway other than being applied as a tool/instrument for the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Therefore, the remarks found to be unpersuasive and 101 rejection is maintained in view of amended claim limitations.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection:
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended claim limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the amended amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
The Examiner asserts, Groschen [0034] and [0035] teaches the amended claim limitation, calculate a weightage for resolving the dispute associated with the executed action, in para. [0034]-[0035] teaches the system uses the machine error data to determine whether the machine error is urgent or non-urgent. This determination of urgency is analogous to calculating a weightage or priority level for the service needed; and
based on the first comparison resulting in a determination that the last service date is before the executed action date: determine (i) a next scheduled service date for the automated teller machine and (ii) a predetermined service time period for responding to the executed action request for resolving the dispute based on the calculated weightage, and second compare the next scheduled service date for the automated teller machine to the predetermined service time for responding to the executed action request; based on the second comparison resulting in a determination that the next scheduled service date exceeds the predetermined service time period, cause a service action related to the automated teller machine to be executed (This is taught in para. [0031]-[0035]. Specifically in para. [0032] determines whether the previously scheduled service call date is appropriated based on scheduled criteria. In para. [0033] teaches the extent the calculated date is before or after the next scheduled service date by more than a threshold amount of time, the offsite computer considers the rescheduling criteria to be met and adjusts or reschedules the scheduled service date closer to the calculated date. The determining of the calculated date is before the scheduled service date is making a determination of comparing the current schedule date with last service date. The determination of the calculated date (i.e., date of failure and service should be performed) is after the threshold amount of time, which is representative of next scheduled service date exceeds the predetermined service time period, and reschedule should be performed. This is consistent with the applicant’s specification in paragraphs [0069], “the comparison of the last service date for the automated teller machine associated with the executed action to the executed action date includes determining whether the last service date for the ATM was before or after the executed action date. In an instance in which the last service date was before the executed action date, then a service has not been completed since the executed action and therefore, a service of the ATM is needed to obtain the information relating to the executed action.” [0070] “Referring now to Block 208 of FIG. 2, the method includes causing a service action related to the automated teller machine to be executed based on determining the last service date is before the executed action date. In an instance in which the ATM has not be serviced since the executed action date, the system is configured to either determine the next scheduled service or schedule a new service.” [0071], “the service action may include determining the next service date for the automated teller machine associated with the executed action and comparing the next service date with the predetermined amount of time that a service is requested (e.g., if a service is recommended within 5 days and the next service date is in 3 days, the previously scheduled service may be maintained). For example, a review of a dispute may need to be completed within a certain number of days and therefore, as long as the next scheduled service occurs within the review time period, no new service would need to be scheduled.” In Groschen para. [0035] states the system will reschedule a service call at an earlier date if the machine… error data shows an urgent error. This links the urgency (i.e., weightage) to the scheduling action which an urgent error must be serviced sooner than a non-urgent one).
Thus, the 103 rejection has been maintained.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Suhy et al. (US 20060229906 A1) is directed to a system automatically gathers, analyzes, and delivers information relating to the procurement and utilization of a plurality of such assets, such as a fleet of industrial equipment, so as to maximize productivity and to reduce operating costs and administrative burdens. In para. [0018] teaches determined whether a sufficient period of time or usage had elapsed as to trigger the performance of periodic routine maintenance for that asset 11. Typically, such determination was made by determining the amount of the elapsed time or usage of the asset 11 (by comparing the most recent indication of the date or amount of usage of the asset 11 with the previous date or amount of usage contained in the record stored in the analysis controller 13), and by comparing such elapsed time or amount of usage with a predetermined standard (also contained in the record of the asset 11 stored in the analysis controller 13). If it was determined that a sufficient amount of elapsed time or amount of usage had occurred, the method 20 branched from the step 24 to a step 25, wherein a hard copy maintenance report was generated by the output device 15. Then, in step 26 of the prior art method 20, the maintenance report generated in the step 25 was physically delivered from the person or entity responsible for tracking the asset 11 to the person or entity that owned or operated the asset 11. The maintenance report advised the person or entity that owned or operated the asset 11 that the time had arrived for the performance of periodic routine maintenance.
Zhu et al. (US 20230334433 A1) is directed to a system and method for service calls associated with the open service records are monitored. In para. [0034], “Predictor 113 than compares the current metric totals and current usage totals relative to the period of time during which a repeated maintenance action was performed in view of a current elapsed time from a last performance of the maintenance action to identify a predicted date and time that the repeated maintenance action will likely be needed. Predictor also compares the current metric totals against the data model and its conditions and events to adjust, if needed, the predicted date and time that the maintenance action will be needed.” Teaches comparing time from last performance of the maintenance action to identify a predicted date and time of repeated maintenance action will be needed.
U. N. A. Razimi, F. Y. Ahmed and N. R. Mustapa, "ATM Reporting System," 2019 IEEE 9th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET), Shah Alam, Malaysia, 2019, pp. 166-171, doi: 10.1109/ICSEngT.2019.8906494.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626