DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 7/2/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10 and 12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. The art rejections are overcome, after further search and consideration. Claims 6, 7 and 12 are objected as being allowable if their parent claims incorporated all limitations from applicable dependent claims. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 are still rejected under subject matter eligibility guidelines. The claims use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial interactions, including sales activities or business relations.
Regarding pages 9-11 of the remarks, paragraph 45 of the specification in the file wrapper corresponds to para. 60 of the published specification. It details the claimed second threshold, and teaches “preventing the request of the cash-out of the amount that cannot be performed”, such that “the payout of change and the like can be reliably continued.” Blocking requests for cash-out to ensure payout of change is not the same as preventing downtime/standby state caused by a shortage of change. A shortage of change could still occur even with no cash-outs. Regardless, the elements of claim 1 teach determining said threshold and enabling the screen to indicate cash out is possible if the threshold is met. No technical control mechanism is seen in the claim beyond “display a screen” when a logical scenario is met, and instruct the money apparatus to dispense money. In combination, the limitations are seen as using computing technology in its ordinary capacity configured to perform the abstract ideas of sales activities of determining change and services for payment.
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, 5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: receive registration of a price of at least one of an item and service, calculate a total amount of the price registered, determine whether the total amount of the price is equal to or greater than a first threshold value, determine if the inventory amount of money is equal to or greater than a second threshold, said threshold is an amount obtained by adding a predetermined amount to a maximum allowed withdraw from a cash-out; display a screen that indicates cash-out is enabled when the total amount of the price is equal to or greater than the first threshold value, and the second threshold is met or exceeded, receive a request of cash-out; and instruct the money apparatus to dispense money when a cash-out request is received such the predetermined amount always remains. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial interactions, including sales activities or business relations.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: a terminal apparatus/POS terminal, a money processing apparatus, a screen, a memory, a processor, and a computer, individually and in combination, merely use a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites upon receiving a command requesting information about money inventory, transmit information. Using computerized elements to transmit information does not make the claims subject matter eligible.
Claim 5 recites when acquiring a request cash amount, displaying a combination of denominations stored and equal to amount. These are seen as part of said abstract idea. Claim 5 also recites transmitting a second command. Examiner interprets the first command as the instructing limitation in claim 1. Claim 5 also recites notifying the apparatus. This transmitting and notifying is seen as sending and receiving data, which is not improvements in computing technology. Claim 5 also recites display the…pattern…to receive an operation of selecting one of the…denominations. This receiving is interpreted as including a user selecting a UI element on the apparatus to choose the combination of bills to withdraw. This is seen as using computing technology in its ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea, both separately and in combination with the rest of the claim(s).
Claims 6, 7 and 12 recite the terminal apparatus is attached to a cart where customer selected items are placed. Claiming this particular arrangement of machines, including a cart, renders said claims subject matter eligible.
Reasons why the Claims Would be Allowable over Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6, 7 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art or non-patent literature has been found that teaches the claimed limitations of determining a second threshold value by adding an amount to a maximum withdraw amount in a single cash out such that the added amount always remains in the apparatus, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claim(s) and in a obvious-to-combine rational.
The closest prior art that reads on the claims are: Kafati (US 2020/0090142) and previously cited Webb, Walker and Goetz. Webb teaches a threshold based approach to offering cash back. Walker teaches said approach in the context of payment for services. Goetz teaches the second threshold of amount of cash available. Kafati teaches setting transaction limits based on currency reserves available in paragraph 30. In summation, Applicant' s claims are distinct from the closest prior art and non-patent literature. For these reasons, the 103 rejections are overcome.
The examiner notes the cited limitations above in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claim(s) are found to be allowable over the prior art of record. Independent claims recite the quoted allowable subject matter or substantially similar language. Accordingly, the claims and their dependent claims are allowable over the prior art for the reasons identified.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Fahd Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
