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 .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 18/055,257 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROCESSING PREAUTHORIZED AUTOMATED BANKING MACHINE-RELATED TRANSACTIONS" filed on October 1, 2025, with claims 1 to 20 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 13, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 29, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 14, 2022, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. However, Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 102 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/185,879, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claims 1-20 inherit the effective filing date of the later instant application of November 14, 2022 and not the date of January 28, 2017 for initial application, 15/418,686, nor the immediate parent application, 17/185,879, whose date is February 25, 2021.
The earlier parent application, 17/185,879, mentions scheduling or reserving a cash machine transaction:
[0004] ... The detection component determines that a cardholder associated with the cardholder account is proximate to a cash machine, identifies a capture time associated with the financial transaction, and determines whether the capture time satisfies the transaction timeframe. The dispenser component dispenses the transaction amount of cash in accordance with a nonvisual communication program.
[0005]... identifying a request for preauthorization of a financial transaction including a transaction amount and a cardholder identifier, determining a transaction timeframe associated with the financial transaction, identifying a cash machine associated with the financial transaction, and determining whether to process the financial transaction in accordance with a nonvisual communication program. .... dispense the transaction amount of cash
However, there are no details regarding, [Claim 1] “…restrict any user other than the user from performing a financial transaction on the selected one or more automated banking machines during the determined transaction timeframe by locking the selected one or more automated banking machines for the determined transaction timeframe…” and [Claim 8] “notify another user performing some financial transaction at the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines within a certain time before the just before the transaction timeframe, that the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines will be locked during the transaction timeframe.” This is not introduced until the instant application, 18/055,257, in Specification paragraph [0118] filed on November 14, 2022, that reads:
[000118] ”… the automated banking machine may lock during the transaction timeframe to enable the user 202 to perform the financial transaction scheduled or initiated by the user 202, thereby preventing anyone else from using the automated banking machine. If another user is performing some financial transaction at the automated banking machine just before the transaction timeframe, the other user is notified (e.g., one minute before start of the transaction timeframe) that the automated banking machine will be locked during the transaction timeframe.
Accordingly, Claims 1-20, are not entitled to the priority date of any earlier application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 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, 2, 4, 7, 9-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REMOTE ATM ACCESS”, U.S. Patent Number: US 11354632 B1), in view of Buentello (“TRANSACTING IN ADVANCE”, U.S. Patent Number: US 10387876 B1),in view of Creighton (“INTELLIGENT SURFACING OF REMINDERS”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20160345132 A1),in view of Ota (“CASH ACCOUNTING SYSTEM”, Japanese Publication Number: JP 2015162132 A).
Regarding Claim 1,
Hill teaches,
A computing system for preauthorizing one or more financial transactions, the computing system comprising: a memory device storing computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to: receive a request for preauthorization of a financial transaction from a user device of a user; based on the request,
(Hill [Claim 13] responsive to receiving the ATM pre-authorization signal
Hill [Claim 14] the transaction code identifying a pre-authorized ATM transaction at the ATM that conforms with the transaction preferences
Hill [Abstract] memory is structured to store instructions that are executable by the processor and cause the processing circuit to receive an indication that a customer is within a predetermined distance from an automated teller machine (ATM)...customer transaction preferences from the customer computing device, and authorize an ATM transaction)
select one or more automated banking machines configured to perform the financial transaction;
(Hill [Col 10, Lines 20-21] ATM pre-stage interface presents different options and transaction types for the user to select
Hill [Col 5, Lines 13-16] the customer may be able to remotely initiate (e.g., pre-stage) a transaction for execution by a nearby ATM 106 through an ATM pre-stage interface of the application
Hill [Col 6, Lines 11-14] allow a customer to identify ATMs in the vicinity of to the customer … make the customer's presence known to the identified ATM)
of the receiving of the request for the preauthorization
(Hill [Abstract] the authorization signal configured to activate an ATM pre-stage function of an application implemented on the customer computing device
Hill [Claim 13] responsive to receiving the ATM pre-authorization signal
Hill [Col 6, Lines 11-15] identify ATMs in the vicinity of to the customer (e.g., within a threshold distance…), … identified ATM for completion at a later point in time)
determine that the user has entered a geofence of one of the selected one or more automated banking machines … upon determining that the user has entered the geofence of the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines
(Hill [Col 4, Lines 33-36] geo-fences the associated location by broadcasting the unique identifier such that a location aware device (e.g., the user device 120) can determine that it is in a certain location
Hill [Col 6, Lines 57-61] can transmit or enable an ATM pre-stage interface associated with the determined position that permits the customer to initiate an ATM transaction remote from a given ATM 106. The transaction may be pre-staged upon entry of the customer into the geo-fenced area)
in response to the prompt on the user device, receive a selection of the financial transaction to be a withdrawal transaction or a deposit transaction along with a user selected amount associated with the withdrawal transaction or the deposit transaction;
(Hill [Col 10, Lines 17-24] The ATM pre-stage interface is presented via the display 210 of the user device...The ATM pre-stage interface presents different options and transaction types for the user to select based on the transaction type (e.g., deposit funds, withdraw funds, transfers, account balance, account statement, charity donation, direct deposit advance, etc.).
Hill [Col 10, Lines 35-38] the user selects, via a link, button, icon, graphic, etc. of the ATM pre-stage interface, the transaction type “withdraw funds”. The user can the select an account and an amount of funds to withdraw from the account via the ATM pre-stage interface.)
based on the selection of the financial transaction to be the withdrawal transaction, cause a dispense, by the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines with or without performing an identification verification of the user, of the user selected amount; and based on the selection of the financial transaction to be the deposit transaction, causing an acceptance, by the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines with or without performing the identification verification of the user, of the user selected amount.
(Hill [Col 11, Line 60 to Col 12, Line 1] The user interactions at the ATM 106 consists of establishing a wireless connection between the user device and the ATM and retrieving funds dispensed by the ATM... the ATM 106 automatically completes the transaction by dispensing funds, receiving funds (e.g., in a deposit transaction)
Hill [Claim 4] wherein the authentication information includes at least one of a password, a PIN, a customer identification number, a customer answer to a verification question, customer biometric data, and a customer image.)
Hill does not teach determine a transaction timeframe for performing the financial transaction at the selected one or more automated banking machines, the transaction timeframe being based on a travel rate for traversing a distance between a geolocation of the user at a time... and a geolocation of the selected one or more automated banking machines; restrict any user other than the user from performing a financial transaction on the selected one or more automated banking machines during the determined transaction timeframe by locking the selected one or more automated banking machines for the determined transaction timeframe; identify a capture time associated with the financial transaction, wherein the capture time is a time a user initiates an execution of the financial transaction, wherein the one or more automated banking machines are configured to perform the financial transaction upon the capture time satisfying a transaction timeframe; determine that the capture time is within the transaction timeframe; based on the capture time being within the transaction timeframe; within the transaction timeframe; within the transaction timeframe, prompt the user to perform the financial transaction at the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines;
Buentello teaches,
determine a transaction timeframe for performing the financial transaction at the selected one or more automated banking machines,
(Buentello [Col 17, Lines 48-54] a customer syncs a calendar to supply information such as location and time for scheduled transactions (e.g., dinner reservations noted in the calendar are scheduled at a certain time and the customer wants to withdraw money from an ATM close to the restaurant; the ATM will be prepared to complete the transaction close to scheduled dinner time))
identify a capture time associated with the financial transaction, wherein the capture time is a time a user initiates an execution of the financial transaction,
(Buentello [Col 9, Line 33] a time the customer is staging the transaction
Buentello [Col 10, Line 36] date and time of when the transaction was staged)
wherein the selected one or more automated banking machines are configured to perform the financial transaction upon the capture time satisfying a transaction timeframe
(Buentello [Col 17, Lines 48-54] a customer syncs a calendar to supply information such as location and time for scheduled transactions (e.g., dinner reservations noted in the calendar are scheduled at a certain time and the customer wants to withdraw money from an ATM close to the restaurant; the ATM will be prepared to complete the transaction close to scheduled dinner time))
determine that the capture time is within the transaction timeframe; based on the capture time being within the transaction timeframe
(Buentello [Col 14, Lines 33-35] a point of transaction coordinating with a scheduled location on the user's calendar,... points of transaction used before or during a certain time of day)
within the transaction timeframe; within the transaction timeframe,
(Buentello [Col 1, Lines 39-40] complete the transaction quickly at a scheduled time at a convenient banking location.
Buentello [Col 2, Line 38-Col 3, Line 2] identifying a location for completion of the transaction... within a predetermined distance of the identified location...and assigning an expiration time)
prompt the user to perform the financial transaction at the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines;
(Buentello [Col 12, Line 3] an ATM in ATM network
Buentello [Col 11, Lines 27-45] alert the customer that the customer is near a possible point of transaction after detecting that the device is near a possible point of transaction...(if additional processing is necessary) such that the user need only authenticate his or her self at the selected point of transaction....may be further configured to communicate to the customer that the transaction is ready for completion.... that the transaction can be completed at that point of transaction, if the customer chooses)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate ATM pre-selection teachings of Buentello for “determining, by the processor, possible points of transaction within a predetermined distance of the identified location.” (Buentello [Claim 1]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. ATM pre-selection) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “such that the user need only authenticate his or her self at the selected point of transaction....may be further configured to communicate to the customer that the transaction is ready for completion.... that the transaction can be completed at that point of transaction” Buentello [Col 11, Lines 27-45])
Buentello does not teach the transaction timeframe being based on a travel rate for traversing a distance between a geolocation of the user at a time … and a geolocation of the selected one or more automated banking machines; restrict any user other than the user from performing a financial transaction on the selected one or more automated banking machines during the determined transaction timeframe by locking the selected one or more automated banking machines for the determined transaction timeframe;
Creighton teaches,
the transaction timeframe being based on a travel rate for traversing a distance between a geolocation of the user at a time … and a geolocation of the selected one or more automated banking machines;
(Creighton [0013] a trigger time, i.e., an advance time to trigger a reminder, is determined and the reminder is triggered based on the determined trigger time. The trigger time may be determined based on the amount of travel time required to reach the location of the second event. For example, a starting location of the user may be predicted, and a predicted route from the starting location to the location of the second event may be determined. The travel time may be determined based on factors such as the distance along the route, speed limits, traffic patterns, weather conditions, and so forth....may be determined at least in part based on a geofence, e.g., a reminder may be triggered when a user leaves a particular location or arrives at a particular location
Creighton [0024] A relevant time to trigger the reminder might be at an early enough time that the user is able to visit a local ATM (or return home) to obtain the cash)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate the travel time calculations of Creighton for “an amount of distance and/or travel time falling within a threshold value, where the threshold value is designated as an amount of distance or travel time which is acceptable to suggest that a user travel to accomplish a task.” (Creighton [0012]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. travel time calculations) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “travel time may be determined based on factors” Creighton [0013])
Creighton does not teach restrict any user other than the user from performing a financial transaction on the selected one or more automated banking machines during the determined transaction timeframe by locking the selected one or more automated banking machines for the determined transaction timeframe;
Ota teaches,
restrict any user other than the user from performing a financial transaction on the selected one or more automated banking machines during the determined transaction timeframe by locking the selected one or more automated banking machines for the determined transaction timeframe;
(Ota [page 14, para 7] When the part 818 determines that the withdrawal reservation information is stored.... the withdrawal instruction information is transmitted to the ATM
Ota [page 14, para 8] Since it is possible to prevent withdrawal by a person other than the user at times, security can be improved. For example, if a user makes a withdrawal reservation for withdrawal during the effective period of the day, withdrawals from the next day will not be accepted. Even in this case, it is possible to prevent withdrawal by another person, so that security can be improved.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate the usage restrictions of Ota where “possible to prevent withdrawal by a person other than the user.” (Ota [page 14, para 8]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. usage restrictions) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “security can be improved” Ota [page 14, para 8])
Regarding Claim 2,
Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Ota teach the preauthorized ATM transactions of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Hill teaches,
wherein the financial transaction comprises a cash withdrawal transaction, a check cashing transaction, or a deposit transaction.
(Hill [Col 10, Lines 20-24] different options and transaction types for the user to select based on the transaction type (e.g., deposit funds, withdraw funds, transfers, account balance, account statement, charity donation, direct deposit advance, etc.).)
Regarding Claim 4,
Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Ota teach the preauthorized ATM transactions of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Hill teaches,
dispense, by the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines with or without performing an identification verification of the user, the user selected amount;
(Hill [Col 3, Lines 59-60] a first ATM may be able to both dispense cash for withdrawals
Hill [Col 10, Lines 36-38] The user can the select an account and an amount of funds to withdraw from the account
Hill [Col 9, Lines 26-29] the term “user authentication information” refers to data indicative of the identity of a customer and/or user of the user device 120 that is requesting the initiation of an ATM transaction via the user device)
and based on the selection of the financial transaction to be the deposit transaction, accept, by the selected one of the one or more automated banking machines with or without performing the identification verification of the user, the user selected amount.
(Hill [Col 3, Lines 19-22] customers can authenticate themselves at a given ATM 106 and deposit funds into accounts, withdraw funds from accounts, transfer funds between accounts, view account balances, and the like.
Hill [Col 11, Line 65 to Col 12, Line 3] After establishing the wireless data connection between the ATM 106 and the user device 120, the ATM 106 automatically completes the transaction by dispensing funds, receiving funds (e.g., in a deposit transaction), printing a receipt, displaying an account balance, transferring funds)
Hill does not teach wherein the prompt is provided on the user device, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to: in response to the prompt on the user device, receive, from the user device, a selection of the financial transaction to be a withdrawal transaction or a deposit transaction along with a user selected amount associated with the withdrawal transaction or the deposit transaction; based on the selection of the financial transaction to be the withdrawal transaction.
Buentello teaches,
wherein the prompt is provided on the user device, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to: in response to the prompt on the user device,
(Buentello [Col 11, Lines 6-7] identifying information such as the user device
Buentello [Col 11, Lines 23-29] configured to detect when the device is near a possible point of transaction, such as by using a geo-fencing functionality. Point of transaction detection module 285 may be further configured to alert the customer that the customer is near a possible point of transaction after detecting that the device is near a possible point of transaction
Buentello [Claim 18] A non-transitory machine-readable medium having machine-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, direct the one or more processors to perform
Buentello [Figures 6, 8-13]
PNG
media_image1.png
598
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
584
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
586
308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
504
380
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
530
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
602
322
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
534
416
media_image7.png
Greyscale
)
receive, from the user device, a selection of the financial transaction to be a withdrawal transaction or a deposit transaction along with a user selected amount associated with the withdrawal transaction or the deposit transaction; based on the selection of the financial transaction to be the withdrawal transaction,
(Buentello [Col 5, Line 63 to Col 6, Line 6] mobile devices 120 (e.g., mobile phone, smartphone, laptop, tablet computer)...These points of interaction can include mechanisms for generating, submitting and processing transactions... and may run one or more applications or clients that allow a user to interact with the banking network ...that include banking functionality such as withdrawals, balance inquiries, deposits, transfers, etc.
Buentello [Col 16, Lines 7-9] depicts a user interface or request for a transaction to send or deposit a user-supplied amount of money.
Buentello [Col 5, Lines 28-32] a customer launches a mobile application, is authenticated, selects the type of transaction such as “Deposit at a Retail Location,” (or the like) and selects an account to deposit into, along with the amount of the deposit)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate ATM pre-selection teachings of Buentello for “determining, by the processor, possible points of transaction within a predetermined distance of the identified location.” (Buentello [Claim 1]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. ATM pre-selection) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “such that the user need only authenticate his or her self at the selected point of transaction....may be further configured to communicate to the customer that the transaction is ready for completion.... that the transaction can be completed at that point of transaction” Buentello [Col 11, Lines 27-45])
Regarding Claim 7,
Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Ota teach the preauthorized ATM transactions of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Hill teaches,
wherein operations involved in the financial transaction are divided into a first portion of the operations and a second portion of the operations, wherein the first portion of the operations are completed prior to entering the geofence of the selected one of the one or more automated banking machines,
(Hill [Abstract] activate an ATM pre-stage function of an application implemented on the customer computing device
Hill [Col 7, Lines 23-25] transmits an ATM pre-stage interface to the infotainment device 120 before the vehicle 408B reaches the ATM
Hill [Col 4, Lines 39-43] an interface of an application being executed on the user device 120 can be changed to allow the customer to initiate a transaction with an associated ATM before the customer is authenticated at the ATM)
wherein the second portion of the operations are completed after entering the geofence
(Hill [Col 7, Lines 56-64] Each locator beacon 118 is associated with an area and geo-fences that area with the broadcasted identifier. Accordingly, if a device (e.g., the user device 120) receives a certain beacon identifier (or combination of beacon identifiers), the location of the device is known to be within the broadcast range of the beacon associated with the identifier. The user device 120 receives a beacon identifier at 504. When the user device 120 enters the broadcast area of a given locator beacon 118, the user device 120 receives the beacon identifier associated with the given locator beacon 118
Hill [Col 11, Lines 51-53] establishing a wireless connection between the user device and the ATM and retrieving funds dispensed by the ATM.)
And wherein the first portion of the operations includes entering an amount associated with the financial transaction and the second portion of the operations includes authenticating the user at the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines.
(Hill [Col 10, Lines 50-53] generates a remote transaction request including the transaction information (e.g., transaction type, account number, amount of funds, etc.).
Hill [Col 9, Lines 21] Prior to allowing a user of the user device 120 to initiate an ATM transaction, the user must be authenticated as an account holder. Accordingly, at 516, the user device 120 receives and transmits user authentication information to the financial institution computing system 104.)
Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Ota in view of Fenichel (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FACILITATING RESERVATION TRADING”, US Publication Number: 20220414720 A1).
Regarding Claim 8,
Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Ota teach the preauthorized ATM transactions of Claim 7 as described earlier.
Hill does not teach notify another user performing some financial transaction at the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines within a certain time before the just before the transaction timeframe, that the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines will be locked during the transaction timeframe
Ota teaches,
the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines … that the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines will be locked during the transaction timeframe
(Ota [page 14, para 7] When the part 818 determines that the withdrawal reservation information is stored.... the withdrawal instruction information is transmitted to the ATM
Ota [page 14, para 8] Since it is possible to prevent withdrawal by a person other than the user at times, security can be improved. ... it is possible to prevent withdrawal by another person, so that security can be improved)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate the usage restrictions of Ota where “possible to prevent withdrawal by a person other than the user.” (Ota [page 14, para 8]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. usage restrictions) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “security can be improved” Ota [page 14, para 8])
Ota does not teach notify another user performing some financial transaction …within a certain time before the just before the transaction timeframe
Fenichel teaches,
notify another user performing some financial transaction …within a certain time before the just before the transaction timeframe
(Fenichel [0062] the system (e.g., system 100) may transmit booking information associated with the upcoming .... reservation to a second customer device associated with a second user (e.g., customer device 140) for display via a GUI. .... Transmitting this booking information to the second customer device may allow the second user to make an informed choice....System 100 may first receive this booking information from the first user
Fenichel [Claim 2] wherein the data covers a predefined period of time.
Fenichel [0075] system may be associated with a financial institution, and may be configured to receive data, such as transaction data, associated with a first user. This transaction data may indicate times, dates, locations, merchants, etc., associated with each transaction the first user
Fenichel [0020] that may be in communication (either directly or via a network 150) with a financial service provider system)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate the notifications of Fenichel where “system … may transmit booking information associated with the upcoming .... reservation to a second customer device associated with a second user.” (Fenichel [0062]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. notifications) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “Transmitting this booking information to the second customer device may allow the second user to make an informed choice” Fenichel [0062])
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Ota in view of Fujisawa (“AUTOMATIC TRANSACTION SYSTEM”, Japanese Publication Number: JP 2013008086 A).
Regarding Claim 3,
Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Ota teach the preauthorized ATM transactions of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Hill does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to: based on an updated geolocation of the user, extend a start time of the determined transaction timeframe by a determined amount of time; based on the extended start time of the determined transaction timeframe, unlock the selected one or more automated banking machines until the determined amount of time has expired; and based on an expiration of the determined amount of time, performing a second locking of the selected one or more automated banking machines for the determined transaction timeframe.
Creighton teaches,
based on an updated geolocation of the user.
(Creighton [0013] The trigger time may be determined based on the amount of travel time required to reach the location of the second event. For example, a starting location of the user may be predicted, and a predicted route from the starting location to the location of the second event may be determined. ....may be determined at least in part based on a geofence)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate the geolocation calculations of Creighton for “an amount of distance and/or travel time falling within a threshold value, where the threshold value is designated as an amount of distance or travel time which is acceptable to suggest that a user travel to accomplish a task.” (Creighton [0012]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. geolocation calculations) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “determined at least in part based on a geofence” Creighton [0013])
Creighton does not teach extend a start time of the determined transaction timeframe by a determined amount of time; based on the extended start time of the determined transaction timeframe, unlock the selected one or more automated banking machines until the determined amount of time has expired; and based on an expiration of the determined amount of time, performing a second locking of the selected one or more automated banking machines for the determined transaction timeframe.
Fujisawa teaches,
extend a start time of the determined transaction timeframe by a determined amount of time;
(Fujisawa [page 7, para 13] the valid period of the device identification information is automatically extended for the ATM for which the withdrawal transaction is performed, and the expiration date of the device identification information is automatically secured for a predetermined period. Therefore, the convenience of the ATM user 11 can be improved.)
based on the extended start time of the determined transaction timeframe, unlock the selected one or more automated banking machines until the determined amount of time has expired;
(Fujisawa [page 4, para 9] The device specifying information is information for specifying the ATM for which the prohibition of the withdrawal transaction is lifted. In this embodiment, the device specifying information includes the ATM-ID, the previous transaction date and time, and the validity period of the device specifying information.)
and based on an expiration of the determined amount of time, performing a second locking of the selected one or more automated banking machines for the determined transaction timeframe.
(Fujisawa [page 2, para 3] when conducting a withdrawal transaction exceeding the limit amount, it must be performed after confirming the identity with an automatic service machine in advance. The ATM is restricted so that cash transactions cannot be made
Fujisawa [page 4, para 9] the device specifying information includes the ATM-ID, the previous transaction date and time, and the validity period of the device specifying information.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate the ATM usage time extension of Fujisawa for “the valid period of the device identification information is automatically extended for the ATM.” (Fujisawa [page 4, para 9]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. ATM usage time extension) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “convenience of the ATM user 11 can be improved” Fujisawa [page 4, para 9])
Claims 5, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Ota in view of Lindemann (“AUTHENTICATION TECHNIQUES INCLUDING SPEECH AND/OR LIP MOVEMENT ANALYSIS”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20180039990 A1).
Regarding Claim 5,
Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Ota teach the preauthorized ATM transactions of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Hill does not teach determine a risk level associated with the financial transaction; and based on the determined risk level, recommend a level of authentication required for completing the financial transaction, wherein prompting the user comprises prompting the user to authenticate according to the recommended level of authentication on one or more of: the user device, and the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines.
Lindemann teaches,
determine a risk level associated with the financial transaction; and
based on the determined risk level
(Lindemann [0015] For certain classes of transactions, the riskiness associated with the transaction may be inextricably tied to the location where the transaction is being performed.
Lindemann [0023] financial transactions employ risk assessment in which various metrics are used to determine if the person initiating the transaction is actually the user that owns the account.
Lindemann [0128] includes a risk engine 812 to determine a risk level)
recommend a level of authentication required for completing the financial transaction, wherein prompting the user comprises prompting the user to authenticate according to the recommended level of authentication on one or more of: the user device, and the selected one of the one or more automated banking machines.
(Lindemann [0352] assurance level calculation module 3006 determines the level of authentication required based on the risk data provided by the client risk assessment agent 3004. For example, if the client risk assessment indicates a relatively high risk value (e.g., 9 or 10 out of 10), then the assurance level calculation module 3006 may require a more reliable and/or explicit user authentication such as PIN/password entry and/or fingerprint scan to authenticate the user for the current transaction. By contrast, if the client risk assessment indicates a relatively low risk (e.g., a 1 or 2 out of 10), then the assurance level calculation module 3006 may require a non-intrusive user authentication such as location-based authentication and/or reliance on a recent explicit user authentication for the current transaction.
Lindemann [0389] a push notification may be sent to the client devices 3601-3602. Alternatively, or in addition, the notification may be sent via email, text message (e.g., SMS), instant message, or any other technology capable of delivering a message to the client devices
Lindemann [0093] at a particular location such as at an automatic teller machine (ATM))
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate risk determination teachings of Lindemann where “riskiness associated with the transaction may be inextricably tied to the location where the transaction is being performed.” (Lindemann [0015]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. risk determination) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “a risk engine 812 to determine a risk level” Lindemann [0128])
Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18,
Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Ota teach the preauthorized ATM transactions of Claim 15 as described earlier.
Hill does not teach determine a risk level associated with the financial transaction; and based on the determined risk level, recommend a level of authentication required for completing the financial transaction.
Lindemann teaches,
determine a risk level associated with the financial transaction; and
based on the determined risk level
(Lindemann [0015] For certain classes of transactions, the riskiness associated with the transaction may be inextricably tied to the location where the transaction is being performed.
Lindemann [0023] financial transactions employ risk assessment in which various metrics are used to determine if the person initiating the transaction is actually the user that owns the account.
Lindemann [0128] includes a risk engine 812 to determine a risk level)
recommend a level of authentication required for completing the financial transaction
(Lindemann [0352] assurance level calculation module 3006 determines the level of authentication required based on the risk data provided by the client risk assessment agent 3004. For example, if the client risk assessment indicates a relatively high risk value (e.g., 9 or 10 out of 10), then the assurance level calculation module 3006 may require a more reliable and/or explicit user authentication such as PIN/password entry and/or fingerprint scan to authenticate the user for the current transaction. By contrast, if the client risk assessment indicates a relatively low risk (e.g., a 1 or 2 out of 10), …)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate risk determination teachings of Lindemann where “riskiness associated with the transaction may be inextricably tied to the location where the transaction is being performed.” (Lindemann [0015]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. risk determination) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “a risk engine 812 to determine a risk level” Lindemann [0128])
Regarding Claim 19,
Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Ota teach the preauthorized ATM transactions of Claim 15 as described earlier.
Hill does not teach wherein prompting the user comprises prompting the user to authenticate according to the recommended level of authentication on one or more of: the user device, and the one of the selected one or more automated banking machines.
Lindemann teaches,
wherein prompting the user comprises prompting the user to authenticate according to the recommended level of authentication on one or more of: the user device, and the one of the one or more automated banking machines.
(Lindemann [0352] then the assurance level calculation module 3006 may require a non-intrusive user authentication such as location-based authentication and/or reliance on a recent explicit user authentication for the current transaction.
Lindemann [0389] a push notification may be sent to the client devices 3601-3602. Alternatively, or in addition, the notification may be sent via email, text message (e.g., SMS), instant message, or any other technology capable of delivering a message to the client devices
Lindemann [0093] at a particular location such as at an automatic teller machine (ATM))
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate risk determination teachings of Lindemann where “riskiness associated with the transaction may be inextricably tied to the location where the transaction is being performed.” (Lindemann [0015]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. risk determination) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “a risk engine 812 to determine a risk level” Lindemann [0128])
Claims 6, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Lindemann in view of Winand (“METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR OPTIMIZING FLOW”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20090259549 A1).
Regarding Claim 6,
Hill, Buentello, Creighton, and Ota teach the preauthorized ATM transactions of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Hill does not teach trace, using a machine learning model, a usage pattern of a plurality of users associated with the selected one or more automated banking machines; and determine, using the machine learning model, a future level of authentication required for completing a future financial transaction.
Lindemann teaches,
trace, using a …. model, a usage pattern of a plurality of users associated with the selected one or more automated banking machines; and determine, using the machine learning model, a future level of authentication required for completing a future financial transaction.
(Lindemann [0187] to generate a gait “fingerprint” of the user's normal walking pattern.... may be used to collect data used for authentication
Lindemann [0098] Following the legitimate user state, the assurance level.... biometric gait of the user may be measured using an accelerometer or other type of sensor...to generate a gait “fingerprint” from the user's normal walking pattern. In addition, the distance to frequently visited destinations of the legitimate user may be tracked, stored and subsequently used to determine the assurance level.
Lindemann [0250] allow for future refinement of authentication techniques.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate risk determination teachings of Lindemann where “riskiness associated with the transaction may be inextricably tied to the location where the transaction is being performed.” (Lindemann [0015]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. risk determination) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “a risk engine 812 to determine a risk level” Lindemann [0128])
Lindemann does not teach machine learning model; using the machine learning model.
Winand teaches,
teach machine learning model; using the machine learning model.
(Winand [0308] Intelligent devices may have local instances ...using its own (artificial) intelligence and/or software agents
Winand [0202] Since the distances are known it is possible to calculate or estimate the time by which a passenger ... must be in a particular zone (Zn), or have crossed from one zone (Zn) to the next zone (Zn-1) such that the passenger...has sufficient time remaining to complete the journey ... This estimate can also be based on local flow information such as the length of time it has taken previous passengers ...to make a similar journey.
Winand [0300] allowing interaction with the system. For example, in the case where a reward is given in cash, the kiosk may be a cash dispenser type, e.g. an ATM linked to the system
Winand [0104] examples of authentication processes)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate flow optimization teachings of Winand where “tracking the position of a plurality of the entities…repeatedly:
comparing each of the positions with a target profile; and calculating or adjusting a reward potential for each entity on the basis of the comparison” (Winand [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. risk determination) to a known concept (i.e. flow optimization) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “rewarding a selected number of entities on the basis of the reward potential associated with each of the entities at a predetermined time” Winand [Abstract])
Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14,
Hill, Buentello, Creighton, Ota, and Winand teach the preauthorized ATM transactions of Claim 13 as described earlier.
Hill teaches,
comprises one or more of geolocation of the one of the one or more automated banking machines
(Hill [Col 8, Lines 49-58] cross-references the ATM database 116 to identify ATMs 106 in the vicinity...where the location information relates to other location information (e.g., GPS coordinates), the financial institution computing system 104 can cross-reference the location ...against the known locations of the ATMs to determine whether the user and/or customer is within a predetermined range of a given ATM )
and device identifier associated with the one of the one or more automated banking machines.
(Hill [Col 4, Lines 43-50] associations of unique identifiers and ATMs is maintained by the financial institution computing system 102 in the ATM database 116. Each entry in the database includes a beacon identifier (e.g., a serial number that is broadcast from the beacon, an SSID, etc.) and an associated ATM identifier (e.g., a unique identifier that identifies a specific ATM 106 or a grouping of ATMs 106 in a specific location).)
Hill does not teach the machine learning model; a frequency of transactions performed on the one of the one or more automated banking machines, an amount, day of week, time.
Buentello teaches,
a frequency of transactions performed on the one of the one or more automated banking machines,
(Buentello [Col 9, Lines 9-35] Customer preferences may include user-selectable preferences or criteria that the customer has provided to the financial institution or other transacting entity prior to the transaction. Such preferences may include the customer's preferred type of point of transaction location (e.g., kiosk, ATM, drive-through, POS device at certain store, network location) for various transactions. Preferences may include a preference of a type of point of transaction or a specific point of transaction depending on the type of transaction being staged, a time the customer is staging the transaction, a specified completion time of the transaction, the device used for staging, and the like)
an amount,
(Buentello [Col 5, Lines 31] along with the amount of the deposit)
day of week, time
(Buentello [Col 10, Lines 34-36] unique identifier may include an account number, transaction identifier, type of transaction, date and time)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate ATM pre-selection teachings of Buentello for “determining, by the processor, possible points of transaction within a predetermined distance of the identified location.” (Buentello [Claim 1]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. ATM pre-selection) to a known concept (i.e. remote ATM access) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “such that the user need only authenticate his or her self at the selected point of transaction....may be further configured to communicate to the customer that the transaction is ready for completion.... that the transaction can be completed at that point of transaction” Buentello [Col 11, Lines 27-45])
Buentello does not teach the machine learning model.
Winand teaches,
teach machine learning model;
(Winand [0308] Intelligent devices may have local instances ...using its own (artificial) intelligence and/or software agents
Winand [0202] Since the distances are known it is possible to calculate or estimate the time by which a passenger ... must be in a particular zone (Zn), or have crossed from one zone (Zn) to the next zone (Zn-1) such that the passenger...has sufficient time remaining to complete the journey ... This estimate can also be based on local flow information such as the length of time it has taken previous passengers ...to make a similar journey.
Winand [0300] allowing interaction with the system. For example, in the case where a reward is given in cash, the kiosk may be a cash dispenser type, e.g. an ATM linked to the system
Winand [0104] examples of authentication processes)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote ATM access of Hill to incorporate flow optimization teachings of Winand where “tracking the position of a plurality of the entities…repeatedly:
comparing each of the positions with a target profile; and calculating or adjusting a reward potential for each entity on the basis of the comparison” (Winand [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. risk determination) to a known concept (i.e. flow optimization) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “rewarding a selected number of entities on the basis of the reward potential associated with each of the entities at a predetermined time” Winand [Abstract])
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on January 13, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Examiner is persuaded by the general argument:
Claim 1 provides a technical improvement over conventional ATM systems at least by allowing users to preauthorize a transaction via a remote device while simultaneously ensuring that the transaction is executed only when the user arrives at the (Locked) ATM within a geofenced location and within a calculated timeframe…. that reconfigures ATM operation to enforce exclusive-use locking … to prompt and dispense.
Examiner is not persuaded not because, “This is a system-rooted improvement that cannot be performed mentally or using pen and paper, and it modifies how ATM systems operate by enabling automated, location-aware transactions with minimal user interaction at the ATM….Under the Memo, such claims may merely involve the context of managing transaction, but do not recite the abstract idea itself, and are therefore not subject to further eligibility analysis.”
Rather, the variable restriction of usage by other users of an ATM while another user is not present expresses an improvement to a specialized device (ATM). The independent claims state: “restrict any user other than the user from performing a financial transaction on the selected one or more automated banking machines during the determined transaction timeframe by locking the selected one or more automated banking machines for the determined transaction timeframe;”
The rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains lifted.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Fenichel (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FACILITATING RESERVATION TRADING”, US Publication Number: 20220414720 A1).
The Applicant states:
“Ota fails to teach "restrict any user other than the user from performing a financial transaction on the selected one or more automated banking machines during the determined transaction timeframe by locking the selected one or more automated banking machines for the determined transaction timeframe," as recited in claim 1…. the locking in Ota does not completely lock the machine from any other user during the transaction timeframe."
Examiner responds:
Applicant's claim language states, “restrict any user other than the user from performing a financial transaction” which indicates the prevention of any financial transaction meets the claimed limitation. Ota states that other individuals are prevented from withdrawal transactions:
Ota [page 14, para 8] Since it is possible to prevent withdrawal by a person other than the user at times, security can be improved. ….it is possible to prevent withdrawal by another person, so that security can be improved
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
藤木 彰(“Automatic Transaction Apparatus And Cash Processing System”, Japanses Publication Number: JP 5434030 B2) provides a “means for determining the propriety of the execution of transactions involving dispensing of the cash other users based on the acquired reservation</u> information by the reservation unit, the reservation receiving unit by inputting the reception number And withdrawing means for withdrawing the cash reserved in step (b ). And when the said determination means performs the said transaction with the said cash withdrawal of the said other user, the number of denominations remaining in the said automatic transaction apparatus is more than the number of denominations of cash withdrawal schedule, or fixed. If the number exceeds the number, the transaction of the other user is continued, and the number of denominations remaining in the automatic transaction apparatus is less than the number of denominations scheduled to be withdrawn or greater than a certain number If not, it is determined whether to stop or continue the transaction of the other user depending on the scheduled cash withdrawal date”.
Lloyd (“NON-INTRUSIVE GEO-LOCATION DETERMINATION ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSACTION AUTHORIZATION”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20170091765 A1) provides authorizing payment credentials and transactions associated with a user digital wallet by automatic and real time utilization of one or more payment credentials applicable and optimal for a transaction initiated by the user. The invention enables a mobile digital wallet application on a user device to determine optimal payment credentials based on one or more transaction parameters comprising geographic location, transaction amount and user authentication associated with the transaction. Transmission of the optimal payment credential causes the receiving system to recognize the one or more transaction parameters and enables the system to process the transaction in accordance with the geographic location, transaction amount and/or the user authentication.
Billou (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FUNDING SOURCE SELECTION”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20150302367 A1) provides to select a funding source to avoid or minimize currency conversion cost for the payer. In particular, a payer may have a plurality of funding sources available for making payments. The available funding sources may make payments in different currencies. In order to avoid currency conversion fees, one or more funding sources may be selected such that the currency of the funding sources matches the currency accepted by the payee. If the available funding sources do not have a currency that matches the currency accepted by the payee, one or more funding sources may be selected to minimize the currency conversion cost.
Jones (“SYSTEMS, APPARATUS, AND METHODS FOR CURRENCY PROCESSING CONTROL AND REDEMPTION”, U.S. Patent Number: US 7980378 B2) proposes a coin processing and redemption system includes a coin processing machine configured to receive a batch of coins in an input region and process the batch of coins to determine a value thereof. A dispensing device is provided and is configured to output a redemption ticket bearing a code. The coin processing machine is configured to associate the redemption ticket code with a coin processing transaction prior to the determination of a value of a batch of coins.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695 /CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695