DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received on November 26, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-14 have been previously cancelled, claims 17, 18, 31 and 34 are currently cancelled and amendments to 15, 16, 22, 29, 30 and 32 have been entered. Therefore, claims 15, 16, 19-30, 32, 33,35 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 26, 2025 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 16, 19-30, 32, 33 and 35 recite allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
Reasons for Allowance
Reasons for allowance are the same as indicated in the Office Action dated May 7, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: Claims Are Patent-Eligible Under the Framework of Ex parte Desjardins.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMED) memo dated December 4, 2025, the Director of the USPTO directs examiners to remind applicants to submit a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 to proffer evidence to establish subject matter eligibility. To provide a stronger issued patent, applicant is advised to submit a declaration under these guidelines.
Applicant argues: B. The Present Claims Reflect Technical Improvements in Cash Handling Technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under previous guidance the claims recite mere instructions executing a generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The Desjardins decision addresses machine learning and the retraining of the machine learning language in which to improve the functioning of the trained system. The instant application fails to recite the same or similar technical underpinnings that were used when evaluating the Desjardins decision. Currently the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant argues: C. Step 2A Prong 1: Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite receiving three amounts, each of which are to be distributed to different locations. Claim 15 recites the additional element of a money handling apparatus that is utilized to perform post-solution activity of dispensing cash, after the series of steps are conducted. Claim 15 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing or retrieving information from memory, presenting offers.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 15 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Applicant argues: D. Step 2AProng 2: Claims Integrate the Judicial Exception Into a Practical Application
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite software that calculates and directs the transfer of funds. Whereas the Desjardins case was improving the system by retraining a machine learning model so as to provide an updated output based on the inputs. In the instant case, Claim 15 utilizes the money handling apparatus to dispense cash in a post-solution activity.
Applicant argues: E. Step 2B: Claims Provide Significantly More Than Any Abstract Idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in part. There are no prior art of record that read on the claimed limitations. However, under the streamlined SME guidance the claims recite an abstract idea as detailed below. Regarding the SMED guidance, applicant is advised to file a 37 CFR 1.132 declaration and provide evidence as to how the claims provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 15, 16, 19-30, 32, 33,35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s):
receiving item information on an item to be purchased by a customer; determining, based on the item information, a purchase amount for the item;
obtaining first information regarding a first amount to be withdrawn from an account of the customer;
obtaining second information regarding a second amount to be received as electronic money; and
processing a transaction for the item by withdrawing the first amount from the account and;
in response to the processing of the transaction, controlling a money handling apparatus to dispense cash which is a part of the third amount.
The steps of the method, as drafted, provide a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions such as sales activities or a business relationship between a retailer and a customer by providing electronic money to a customer in a sales transaction which includes the purchase amount of an item (as claimed), for example, in a transaction between the customer and retailer the customer is able to receive electronic money on a medium of a customer.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers sales activities or a business relationship, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of a money handling apparatus, which is a generic computer component performing a post solution activity of dispensing cash to a customer upon the execution of instructions. The money handling apparatus insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In addition to the above, dispensing cash as part of a third amount represent little more than extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering or outputting) that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (see: MPEP 2106.05(g)).
To the extent that processing may be interpreted as an additional element (if interpreted as a transaction terminal or POS), then this additional element would also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If the processing step is interpreted to include a transaction terminal or POS, then this is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic function of transaction processing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Similarly, a transaction terminal or POS would not be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical
application, the additional element of a transaction terminal or POS (such as a computer) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is patent ineligible.
A similar analysis is applied to claims 29 and 32 which recites essentially the same abstract idea as in claim 15. Claim 32 includes the additional elements of a money handling apparatus. However, the a money handling apparatus is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic processors performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Similarly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a money handling apparatus amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. When considering the claim as a whole, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims also are patent ineligible. For example, claims 16, 22, 30 and 35 include a money handling apparatus configured to dispense cash/change to a user and provide a confirmation. As stated above the money handling apparatus is a generic computer component performing generic computer functions. Moreover the money handling apparatus is conducting an extra solution activity of dispensing cash/change in a transaction environment that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., transaction processing) and does not integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more.
Claims 19-21 further describes the business relationship between the customer and retailer by describing how the second information is obtained from the customer.
Claims 26-28 further describes the abstract idea by defining a medium as a card or terminal, defining the processing performed by an automatic checkout machine or a ticket machine.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15, 29 and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,177, hereinafter ‘177.
As per Claim 15, ‘177 discloses a method, comprising:
receiving item information on an item to be purchased by a customer;
determining, based on the item information, a purchase amount for the item;
obtaining first information regarding a first amount to be withdrawn from an account of the customer;
obtaining second information regarding a second amount to be received as electronic money;
obtaining third information regarding a third amount to be dispensed in cash from the first amount;
processing a transaction for the item by withdrawing the first amount from the account and adding the second amount of electronic money to a medium of the customer; and
in response to the processing of the transaction, controlling a money handling apparatus to dispense which is a part of the third amount. (Claim 11)
As per Claim 29, ‘177 discloses an apparatus, comprising:
receive item information on an item to be purchased by a customer;
determine, based on the item information, a purchase amount for the item;
obtain first information regarding a first amount to be withdrawn from an account of the customer;
obtain second information regarding a second amount to be received as electronic money;
obtain third information regarding a third amount to be dispensed in cash from the first amount;
process a transaction for the item by withdrawing the first amount from the account and adding the second amount of electronic money to a medium of the customer; and
dispense, in response to processing the transaction, cash which is a part of the third amount. (Claim 1)
As per Claim 32, ‘177 discloses a method for a money handling apparatus which obtains item information on an item to be purchased by a customer and calculates a purchase amount to be paid by the customer, the method comprising:
receiving, by the money handling apparatus, any two pieces of information out of (i) first information regarding a first amount to be withdrawn from an account of the customer,(ii) second information regarding a second amount to be received by electronic money from the first amount, and (iii) third information regarding a third amount to be received in cash from the first amount;
determining, based on the item information, a purchase amount for the item;
obtaining first information regarding a first amount to be withdrawn from an account of the customer;
obtaining second information regarding a second amount to be received as electronic money;
obtaining third information regarding a third amount to be dispensed in cash from the first amount;
processing a transaction for the item by withdrawing the first amount from the account and adding the second amount of electronic money to a medium of the customer; and
dispensing, in response to the processing of the transaction, cash which is a part of the third amount. (Claim 1 and Claim 11)
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases are concerned with acquiring three amounts, withdrawing a settlement amount from a customer account, transferring an amount to an electronic money and dispensing an amount in cash.
Claim 15 of the instant application teaches a method that receives three amounts, processing a transaction by withdrawing a first amount from an account, adding a second amount to electronic money and dispensing a third amount from a money handling apparatus. Claim 15 of the instant application fails to disclose receiving an input at a register, receiving money from a customer at a cash dispensing machine and transmitting information to an external apparatus.
Claim 11 of the issued patent recites receiving, at a register, an input of data of an item purchased by a customer in the transaction; calculating a purchase amount of the item; receiving, by a cash dispensing machine, money from the customer; dispensing change which is a part of the money, by the cash dispensing machine, when the received money exceeds the purchase amount.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the first device recited in claim 15 of the instant application to include the ability for a register to receive input data for a purchasable item, calculate the amount of an item and dispense cash at a cash dispensing machine.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter with substantially similar claim language. A similar analysis is conducted for claims 29 and 32.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kurihara, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0050383 discusses a transaction settlement system includes a transaction processing apparatus and a settlement apparatus. The transaction processing apparatus includes an output device and a controller. The controller of the transaction processing apparatus generates a symbol by coding a transaction amount and payment amounts according to payment methods and causes the output device to output the symbol to a portable medium. The settlement apparatus includes a reader and a controller. The controller of the settlement apparatus acquires the transaction amount and the payment amounts according to the payment methods by decoding the symbol read by the reader from the portable medium. Abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627