DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 1/27/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 2, 4, 9 and 11, amendments to claims 1, 3, 8 and 10, and addition of claim 12 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10 and 12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. Additional prior art has been cited in lieu of Yuasa to teach the amendments/ added limitations concerning the second threshold of the cash drawer amount being met to allow the transaction to continue. The remarks concerning subject matter eligibility are not persuasive, as the meat of the claims are directed to the mental analysis concerning commercial transactions, specifically determining monetary thresholds to permit cash exchange in a transaction setting. Using a POS terminal and money processing apparatus to determine the cash values of transactions and terminals, and dispense cash is seen as using said apparatus in its ordinary capacity to perform the inventive concept of using multiple thresholds to decide to process a transaction.
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; display an indication that 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 dispense money when a cash-out request is received. 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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (US 2016/0371660), in view of Walker (US 10,825,004), and in further view of Goetz (US 11,410,149).
Claims 1, 8 and 10. Webb teaches a money processing system, comprising:
a terminal apparatus; and (para. 45 showing POS; Figure 1 showing bank module)
a money processing apparatus configured to dispense money, (para. 45 showing cashier providing cash from POS)
wherein the terminal apparatus is a point of sale (POS) terminal configured to:
receive registration of a price of at least one of an item and service; (Webb para. para. 44 showing check cashing service and determination of price charged for service)
calculate a total amount of the price of which the registration is received, (par. 43 showing fee for service) (Webb para. para. 44 showing check cashing service and determination of price charged for service)
determine whether a total amount is equal to or greater than a first threshold value, (Webb para. 45 showing threshold amount determination for enabling cash back feature)
display a screen that indicates that cash-out is enabled when the total amount of the price is equal to or greater than a first threshold value, and (para. 45 showing prompt for user to enable cash back)
instruct, upon receiving the request of cash-out, the money processing apparatus to dispense money. (para. 45 showing cashier providing cash from POS)
Webb teaches using a threshold amount of money to determine whether to offer cash back service prompts to a user. It does not use a threshold amount of a purchase, rather an amount of user deposit. However, Walker teaches using a threshold amount of a purchase amount owed as a determination for notification to a user. (Walker column 72, lines 7-43 showing a set threshold amount of service charge that would prompt a user to offer a cash dispense service.)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the service amount threshold of the secondary reference for the deposit amount threshold of the primary reference.
Walker teaches, in column 33, lines 45-67, determining amount of cash available in the till, and notifying such. Webb as modified by Walker does not, but Goetz teaches:
determine whether an inventory amount of the money processing apparatus is equal to or greater than a second threshold value, (column 7, lines 27 through 45 showing cash in drawer amount thresholds)
and display a screen that when the inventory amount of the money processing apparatus is equal to or greater than the second threshold value. (column 8, lines 24 through 37 showing notification when amount of cash in drawer is greater than a threshold; also Claim 14)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of cash back in Webb as modified by Walker, with the known technique of inventory checking in Goetz, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for ensuring sufficient funds for transaction completion. See Background of Goetz.
Claim 3. Said modified Webb teaches the money processing system according to claim 1. Webb does not, but Goetz teaches: the terminal apparatus is further configured to transmit a command requesting information about the inventory amount of the money processing apparatus to the money processing apparatus; and the money processing apparatus is configured to transmit, upon receiving the command information about an inventory amount stored in a memory provided in the money processing apparatus. (column 13, lines 14 through 27 showing request and transmission of cash amount in drawer between POS and terminal devices in Goetz)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of cash back prompts in said modified Webb, with the known technique of cash inventory in Goetz because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by ensuring said system is capable of desired operations. (Background of Goetz.)
Claim 8 additionally:
a memory configured to store a first threshold value and a second threshold value; and (Webb para. 78 showing memory for system)
a processor configured to compare a total amount of a price of at least one of an item and service and the first threshold value. (para. 78 showing processor for system)
Claim 10 additionally: a computer. (Webb para. 78 showing computer embodiment)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb in view of Walker, Goetz and further in view of Ito (US 9,424,705).
Claim 5. Webb as modified by Walker teaches the money processing system according to claim 1. Said modified Webb does not, but Ito teaches wherein the terminal apparatus is further configured to: acquire a request amount for cash-out, and display a combination of denominations that is stored in the money processing apparatus and is equal to the request amount. (Ito column 20, line 59-column 21, line 11 showing cash back POS determining denominations on hand and displays a combination of notes equal to request)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of cash back prompts in said modified Webb, with the known technique of change determination in Ito because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for accurate cashier performance (Ito column 20, line 59-column 21, line 11 showing accurate teller instructions).
Claims 6, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb in view of Walker, Goetz, and further in view of Raza (US 2018/0370554).
Claim 6. Webb as modified by Walker teaches the money processing system according to claim 1. It does not, but Raza teaches wherein the terminal apparatus is attached to a cart into which an item selected by a customer is placed. (Para. 14 showing cart with POS attached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of cash back prompts in said modified Webb, with the known technique of hardware integration in Raza because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for the user to search for items while shopping (Raza para. 14).
Claim 7. Webb as modified by Walker and Raza teaches the money processing system according to claim 6. Webb teaches wherein the money processing apparatus comprises an information input apparatus configured to input information (Webb para. 74 showing POS with input devices) required for performing cash-out, and is configured to dispense money through cash-out when the information is input from the information input apparatus. (Webb para. 45 showing user option/prompt for cash back and cash provisioning).
Claim 12. Webb as modified by Walker, Goetz and Raza teaches the money processing system according to claim 6. Webb teaches:
display the screen when the total amount of the price is equal to or greater than the first threshold value at a point in time when the registration of the price of all items planned to be purchased by the customer is completed (Webb para. 45 showing threshold amount determination for enabling cash back feature, and showing prompt for user to enable cash back)
Webb does not, but Walker teaches wherein the terminal apparatus attached to the cart is configured to:
receive the registration of the price of the selected item in linkage with an item selection operation by the customer. (column 23, lines 30-54 showing price determination of item at system’s registration of customer’s selection)
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of a POS in Webb with the known technique of registering items for checkout in Walker, as it would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for item registration at POS.
Walker teaches: display a screen when the inventory amount of the money processing apparatus is equal to or greater than the second threshold value. (column 33, lines 45-67, determining amount of cash available in the till, and notifying such.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of cash back in Webb as modified by Walker, with the known technique of inventory checking in Walker, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for ensuring sufficient funds for transaction completion.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights