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 .
Acknowledgments
This submission filed on 09 July 2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21 and 22 are pending.
In the Amendment filed on 07/09/25, claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15 and 17 were amended, claims 6, 13 and 20 were cancelled, and claims 21 and 22 were added.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21 and 22 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objections
In view of the deletion/cancellation of the claimed subject matter, the objections are rendered moot.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112
In view of the claim amendments, the previous rejections are withdrawn. However, the claim amendments give rise to new rejections.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Explanation is provided as follows.
As per Applicant’s description of the claimed invention, in response to a match determined using machine learning, the claims provide a link with directions to an available ATM proactively, thereby freeing a user device of the need to "receive a user selection of an ATM, receive a location, detect ATMs closest to the location, and/or detect accessibility of ATMs," and accordingly, "conserving memory and processor resources of the user device" (Response, p. 14). As so described in Applicant's words, the claims reflect an alleged improvement in the abstract idea (viz., notifying a user of an available ATM), applied using generic computer elements recited at a high level of generality, with an alleged conservation of computer resources incident to the alleged improvement in the abstract idea. The alleged conservation of computer resources is attributable to the alleged improvement in the abstract idea. No actual improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology is present, as the claimed invention uses off-the-shelf computer elements (e.g., processor, memory, software application, machine learning) or other technology (i.e., representing a particular field of use/ technological environment) (geolocation device).
At page 15 of the Response, Applicant alleges that "these additional elements" integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant does not explicitly identify what specific claimed subject matter is alleged to constitute "these additional elements," but as per Applicant's remarks "these additional elements" are understood to refer to the claimed subject matter that Applicant specifically sets forth immediately preceding the reference to "these additional elements." This claimed subject matter appears to encompass the entirety of the operations performed by the system of independent claim 1, except for the first three operations thereof (11 of 14 operations). However, as per the instant rejection (as set forth in the body of the Office Action hereinbelow), the vast bulk of this claimed subject matter does not constitute additional elements but rather the abstract idea, and the abstract idea cannot integrate itself into a practical application, and, as stated, the additional elements are merely generic computer elements recited at a high level of generality or represent a particular field of use/technological environment.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
In view of the claim amendments, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Antecedent Basis
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite:
monitoring a first automated teller machine (ATM) associated with the user device based on a distance between the first ATM and the address being less than a default distance;
…
identifying a second ATM within a default distance of the location of the user device;
In view of the underlined language, it is unclear whether the second recited "default distance" is the same as the first recited "default distance" or not.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recite:
receiving, from the user device, the default distance; and
determining that the distance between the first ATM and the address is less than the default distance.
In view of the underlined language, it is unclear whether the recited "default distance" refers to the first recited "default distance" or the second recited "default distance" of the respective base claim.
Claim 22 recites:
identifying a service provider location within a default distance of the location of the user device;
In view of the underlined language, it is unclear whether the recited "default distance" refers to the first recited "default distance" or the second recited "default distance" of base claim 1.
Claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21 and 22 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from a rejected claim.
Unclear Scope
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite:
monitoring a first automated teller machine (ATM) associated with the user device based on a distance between the first ATM and the address being less than a default distance;
The underlined language constitutes a dangling modifier: it is unclear whether the underlined language qualifies "monitoring a first automated teller machine (ATM)" or "associated with the user device," in other words, it is unclear if it is the monitoring or the association that is based on the distance being less than a default distance.
Claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21 and 22 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from a rejected claim.
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, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21 and 22 are directed to a system, method, or non-transitory computer-readable medium, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for notifying a user of an available ATM. For claims 1, 8 and 15 (claim 1 being deemed representative), the limitations (indicated below in bold) of:
receiving an address included in a user account from the user device, the user account being associated with a service provider and the user account being accessible via a software application executing on the user device;
monitoring a first automated teller machine (ATM) associated with the user device based on a distance between the first ATM and the address being less than a default distance;
inputting first data associated with previous ATM access by a user of the user account into a first machine-learning model;
outputting, by the first machine learning model and based on the first data, a first plurality of dates for subsequent access to the first ATM by the user;
outputting, by the first machine-learning model and based on the first data, a predicted function for each of the first plurality of dates, the predicted function being selected from a group consisting of depositing funds into the user account and accessing account details of the user account;
inputting, into a second machine-learning model, second data comprising dates of previous inaccessibility of the first ATM and functions of the first ATM inaccessible on the dates;
outputting, via the second machine-learning model and based on the second data, a second plurality of dates on which the first ATM is inaccessible and a function of the first ATM that is inaccessible on each of the second plurality of dates;
determining that a date of the second plurality of dates on which the first ATM is inaccessible is the same as a date of the first plurality of dates;
determining that the function of the first ATM that is inaccessible on the date of the second plurality of dates is the same as the predicted function for the date of the first plurality of dates;
in response to determining that the date of the second plurality of dates on which the first ATM is inaccessible is the same as the date of the first plurality of dates and to determining that the function that is inaccessible on the date of the second plurality of dates is the same as the predicted function for the date of the first plurality of dates:
accessing a geolocation device of the user device to determine a location of the user device;
identifying a second ATM within a default distance of the location of the user device;
generating a link to a navigation application comprising directions from the location of the user device to a location of the second ATM; and
transmitting, to the user device, the link.
as drafted, constitute a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "certain methods of organizing human activity," specifically, "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The Examiner notes that "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks, and "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.A.,B. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers "fundamental economic practices or principles" and/or "commercial or legal interactions," but for recitation of generic computer components and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, then it falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A - Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional elements of an alert computing system communicatively coupled to a user device via a network and comprising a processor and a memory that includes instructions executable by the processor for causing the processor to perform operations (the foregoing limitations recited in claim 1); an alert computing system (the foregoing limitations recited in claim 8); a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by a processor of an alert computing system for causing the processor to perform operations (the foregoing limitations recited in claim 15); a user device, a software application executing on the user device; monitoring a first automated teller machine (ATM) associated with the user device based on a distance between the first ATM and the address being less than a default distance; machine learning; accessing a geolocation device of the user device; a link to a navigation application; and transmitting, to the user device, the link (the foregoing limitations recited in claims 1, 8 and 15) that implement the abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and they are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computer elements performing generic computer functions, or a field of use limitation), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements, or, in the case of monitoring a first automated teller machine (ATM) associated with the user device based on a distance between the first ATM and the address being less than a default distance and accessing a geolocation device of the user device, such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A - prong 2: NO. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an alert computing system communicatively coupled to a user device via a network and comprising a processor and a memory that includes instructions executable by the processor for causing the processor to perform operations (the foregoing limitations recited in claim 1); an alert computing system (the foregoing limitations recited in claim 8); a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by a processor of an alert computing system for causing the processor to perform operations (the foregoing limitations recited in claim 15); a user device, a software application executing on the user device; monitoring a first automated teller machine (ATM) associated with the user device based on a distance between the first ATM and the address being less than a default distance; machine learning; accessing a geolocation device of the user device; a link to a navigation application; and transmitting, to the user device, the link (the foregoing limitations recited in claims 1, 8 and 15), to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements, or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer elements or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.)
Dependent claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21 and 22 are similarly rejected because they further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 as discussed above, and/or do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept such as would render the claims eligible, whether each is considered individually or as an ordered combination.
As for further defining/narrowing the abstract idea:
Claims 3, 10 and 17 merely describe receiving the default distance and determining that the distance between the first ATM and the address is less than the default distance.
Claim 7 merely describes transmitting a first alert comprising the date of the second plurality of dates on which the first ATM is inaccessible; determining, after the date of the second plurality of dates, that the first ATM is accessible; and transmitting a second alert comprising an indication that the first ATM is accessible.
Claim 21 merely describes wherein the operation of outputting, by the first … model and based on the first data, the first plurality of dates for subsequent access to the first ATM by the user comprises: outputting, by the first … model, a predicted weekday that the user accesses the first ATM and a predicted frequency that the user accesses the first ATM; and generating, based on the predicted weekday and the predicted frequency, the first plurality of dates.
Claim 22 merely describes in response to determining that the date of the second plurality of dates on which the first ATM is inaccessible is the same as the date of the first plurality of dates and to determining that the function that is inaccessible on the date of the second plurality of dates is the same as the predicted function for the date of the first plurality of dates: identifying a service provider location within a default distance of the location of the user device; generating … directions from the location of the user device to the service provider location.
As for additional elements:
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recite “wherein the operation of monitoring the first ATM associated with the user device further comprises" and "the user device." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element ("the user device") or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (“wherein the operation of monitoring the first ATM associated with the user device further comprises"). Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the memory further includes instructions executable by the processor for causing the processor to perform operations comprising:" and "the user device." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 21 recites “machine learning." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the link is a first link, and the memory further includes instructions executable by the processor for causing the processor to perform operations comprising:"; "a second link to the navigation application comprising"; and "transmitting the second link to the user device." This recitation is at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, dependent claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21 and 22 are not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to expressly teach or suggest the features found in the independent claims. Bhuvad (US-10825307-B1) teaches a method for determining and providing notifications regarding ATMs that can fulfill a transaction plan of a user, including determining a transaction plan for a user, the transaction plan including a schedule of future transactions of the user based on historical user data and user-provided information, wherein the determined transaction plan includes a forecast future withdrawal amount and corresponding time, and further including identifying an automated teller machine (ATM) preferred by the user, determining whether the preferred ATM can fulfill the determined transaction plan, and if the preferred ATM cannot fulfill the determined transaction plan, then determining one or more alternate ATMs that can fulfill the determined transaction plan. Rodrigues (US-20180341934-A1) teaches remotely determining whether an ATM is available for a desired withdrawal so as to obviate physically travelling to the location of the ATM if unavailable (e.g., inoperative or not loaded with sufficient cash or not having desired denominations of currency), including a polling mechanism to determine parameters of various ATMs, and including determining the location of a user device via a GPS receiver of the user device, and determining nearby ATMs within a threshold distance of the location of the user device, where the threshold distance may be a predetermined value or specified by the user. Benkreira (US-20210081913-A1) teaches a system and method for routing customers to an automated teller machine (ATM) using machine learning, including receiving, from a client device, a request to locate an ATM, the request including a constraint (user-specified criterion) of a desired ATM, identifying a plurality of ATMs proximate a location of the client device, pinging the identified plurality of ATMs to identify attributes associated with each respective ATM, receiving the attributes, comparing the attributes from each respective ATM to historical ATM usage statistics associated with the client device, and routing a user of the client device to a target ATM from the plurality of ATMs based at least partially on the historical ATM usage statistics, via a recommendation including a link to open a map program having directions to the target ATM. Jan (US-20200019935-A1) teaches generating a maintenance schedule for an ATM by prediction based on various ATM data. Hao (US-20160086143-A1) teaches inter alia identifying and notifying a user of ATMs available for use and within a threshold distance of the user's device and if the ATM subsequently becomes unavailable for use notifying the user of this. Mossoba (US-20190347631-A1) teaches inter alia, in the context of determining ATM availability, receiving from a user device customer data including a customer address of a customer account, and an associated application on the user device. Furey (US-20180114222-A1) teaches inter alia, in the context of determining ATM availability, determining a changed status of an ATM from unavailable to available and informing a user of it. Gibson (US-10395199-B1) teaches determining an optimal schedule for replenishing an ATM with a supply of cash based on historical volume data, to avoid shortages and overages. Psillas (US-20120303448-A1) teaches determining and notifying a user of ATMs located near an ATM used by the user, which charge lower fees than the ATM used by the user. In particular, however, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest all of the features in independent claims 1, 8 or 15, and more specifically the limitations of: inputting first data associated with previous ATM access by a user of the user account into a first machine-learning model; outputting, by the first machine learning model and based on the first data, a first plurality of dates for subsequent access to the first ATM by the user; outputting, by the first machine-learning model and based on the first data, a predicted function for each of the first plurality of the predicted function being selected from a group consisting of depositing funds into the user account and accessing account details of the user account; inputting, into a second machine-learning model, second data comprising dates of previous inaccessibility of the first ATM and functions of the first ATM inaccessible on the dates; outputting, via the second machine-learning model and based on the second data, a second plurality of dates on which the first ATM is inaccessible and a function of the first ATM that is inaccessible on each of the second plurality of dates; determining that a date of the second plurality of dates on which the first ATM is inaccessible is the same as a date of the first plurality of dates; determining that the function of the first ATM that is inaccessible on the date of the second plurality of dates is the same as the predicted function for the date of the first plurality of dates; in response to determining that the date of the second plurality of dates on which the first ATM is inaccessible is the same as the date of the first plurality of dates and to determining that the function that is inaccessible on the date of the second plurality of dates is the same as the predicted function for the date of the first plurality of dates: accessing a geolocation device of the user device to determine a location of the user device; identifying a second ATM within a default distance of the location of the user device; generating a link to a navigation application comprising directions from the location of the user device to a location of the second ATM; and transmitting, to the user device, the link, in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as set forth in the accompanying Notice of References Cited (PTO-892), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Description of the cited prior art is provided above ("Subject Matter Distinguishable From Prior Art").
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 DOUGLAS W PINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-4131. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DWP/
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626