DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Dec. 26, 2025, and is made Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Interviews conducted solely for the purpose of “sounding out” the examiner, including by local counsel acting only as a conduit for another practitioner, are not permitted under MPEP § 713.03. The Office is strictly enforcing established interview practice, and applicants should ensure that every interview request is directed toward advancing prosecution on the merits in compliance with MPEP §§ 713 and 713.03.
For after-final Interview requests, supervisory approval is required before an interview may be granted. Each AIR should specifically explain how the After-Final Interview request will advance prosecution—for example, by identifying targeted arguments responsive to the rejection of record, alleged defects in the examiner’s analysis, proposed claim amendments, or another concrete basis for discussion. See MPEP § 713. If the AIR form’s character limits prevent inclusion of all pertinent details, Applicants may send a contemporaneous email to the examiner at James.Miller1@uspto.gov.
The examiner is generally available Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.
For any GRANTED Interview Request, Applicant can expect an email within 24 hours confirming an interview slot from the dates/times proposed and providing collaboration tool access instructions. For any DENIED Interview Request, the record will include a communication explaining the reason for the denial.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Sept. 12, 2025, was filed after the first Office action on the merits but before final action and contained the statement required by 37 CFR 1.97(e). Therefore, said IDS is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(c). Accordingly, the IDS has been considered
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1, 3–11, and 13–20 are now pending and examined with Claims 1, 10, 11, and 20 in independent form.
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 20 are presently amended.
Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled.
No Claims are presently added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Jun. 30, 2023, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Applicant's Amendment to address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a), (b) have been reviewed and have overcome each and every rejection under §§ 112(a), (b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed Aug. 26, 2025, [“Non-Final Office Action"]. Applicant’s Reply at 8–9. The rejections of Claims 1–20 under §§ 112(a), (b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Applicant argues the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they define a specific, non-conventional computing architecture for initiating and conducting a secure communication session between a mobile application and a remote teller application while maintaining compete device isolation between the mobile device and the ATM, which solves a technical problem in distributed communication systems analogous to the specific technical solution implemented through a defined arrangement of computing components found eligible in Enfish, McRO, Ancora, and Amdocs. Applicant’s Reply at 9–10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Both Prong One and the Enfish, McRO, Ancora, and Amdocs analogies fail for the same reason—the claims do not recite the specific architecture Applicant argues. Rather, the claims recite its intended result in negative functional terms. At Prong One, the core sequence of representative claim 10 (“Rep. Claim 10”) describes a fundamental coordination concept that is a method of organizing human activity, irrespective of the technical motivation described in the specification. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 4. At Prong One/Prong Two, the Enfish analogy fails because recited the technical mechanism of the improvement (i.e., the self-referential table structure) and not merely its outcome. Claim 10’s limitation “without any direct connection between the mobile device and the ATM so that no audio or video data is shared between the mobile device and the ATM.” Describes what the system must do but does not describe the mechanism to do it, such as a new protocol, architecture, or arrangement of components that achieves the exclusion. The word “direct” permits indirect communications, including the one described at Spec. ¶ 42 where “the ATM and computing device may communicate with each via a separate secured private network whereas the computing device communicates with the mobile device via a public network.”
Applicant argues the coordinate assignment of defined roles to each device is a structural arrangement tying the claims to a concrete technological implementation, and that this arrangement of functionality across devices is analogous to BASCOM’s placement of a filtering tool at a specific, non-conventional network location. Applicant’s Reply at 11.
Examiner respectively disagrees. The specific architectural placement and exclusive device-role assignment is not affirmatively recited in the Rep. Claim 10. The cooperative device roles fail to constitute a nonconventional arrangement because each device performs its known, conventional function—ATM displays on its screen, mobile device scans a QR code, teller device runs a communication application (convention per Spec. ¶ 45) and the negative functional limitation “without any direct connection between the mobile device and the ATM so that no audio or video data is shared between the mobile device and the ATM” does not define how the ATM is architecturally excluded and permits a conventional architecture (indirect connection) where the teller’s computing device brokers connectivity between the ATM and the mobile device. Spec. ¶ 42. The BASCOM analogy fails because Rep. Claim 10 does not affirmatively recite that A/V communication is placed “exclusively” on the mobile device—the “direct” qualifier permits indirect connections. Spec. ¶ 42.
Applicant argues that the Examiner has nor provided evidence that the specific combination (i.e., optical code-based initiation, mobile device only A/V communication, and enforced ATM isolation) was well-understood, routine, or conventional under Berkheimer and points to the § 103 prior art record as affirmative confirmation that the claimed architecture was non-conventional in the art.
Examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant’s argument requires the complete ATM isolation architecture but as previously discussed, Claim 10’s direct qualifier and A/V only data exclusion permit conventional architectures. Spec. ¶ 42. For Berkheimer, the evidentiary burden is met entirely by the specification’s own admission as explained in the Non-Final Office Action, repeated here: Spec. ¶ 2 (ATMs are known); ¶ 44 (“mobile application is the individual bank's existing mobile banking application”); ¶ 45 (teller application is the one “currently utilized by a member of bank staff.”); ¶ 51 (audio/video “transmitted over the internet (e.g., via Wi-Fi, cellular data etc.)” without any novel protocol identified.). The negative functional limitation “without any direct connection between the mobile device and the ATM so that no audio or video data is shared between the mobile device and the ATM” does not introduce any new technical element. To the extent Applicant is arguing that the novelty of the claims renders them eligible under § 101, Applicant again misapprehends § 101 jurisprudence. MPEP § 2106.04(I) (citing Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2117 (2013) (“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.”)); MPEP § 2106.05 (“As made clear by the courts, the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that it is not “enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.). The alleged undisclosed combination of features does not cure the defect that Rep. Claim 10 itself permits the indirect communications that prior art references might use while not routing A/V data though a direct ATM-mobile connection.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1–20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3–11, and 13–20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3–11, and 13–20: Independent Claims were amended to recite, “without any direct connection between the mobile device and the ATM so that no audio or video data is shared between the mobile device and the ATM,” which is indefinite because “direct connection” fails to inform a person or ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the claimed exclusion (negative limitation) with reasonable certainty. Claim Interpretation: The “so that” clause is a consequence clause and describes the result of the absence of a direct connection, not a definition of “direct connection” itself. The prohibition is therefore limited to direct-path A/V data sharing only—indirect-path A/V data sharing and all non-A/V data sharing between the mobile device and ATM are outside the claim’s scope. Under this claim construction, the limitation is indefinite because the term “direct connection” is used with at least four materially different and irreconcilable meanings (¶¶ 1, 42, 45, 46) ranging from a network-layer point-to-point socket (¶ 42) to any connection enabling data sharing of any kind (¶ 46) with no identification of the unifying controlling definition, leaving a POSITA unable to determine the scope of the structural prohibition with reasonable certainty. All Dependent Claims are rejected based on the dependency from one of the rejected Independent Claims.
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, 3–11, and 13–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1, 3–11, and 13–20 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1, 3–9, 18, 19 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.” Claims 10 and 20 recite a “system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Claims 11 and 13–19 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a "process.”
Representative Claim
Claim 10 is representative [“Rep. Claim 10”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations1 and underline, as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception:
[A] A computing system, comprising: an ATM, a mobile device of a user of an ATM and a computing device of a remote bank teller,
[B] wherein the ATM is configured to:
[B1] detect an input event indicating that the user of the ATM wants to communicate with a bank teller; and
[B2] display a machine-readable code, comprising information enabling establishment of a bi-directional audio and video communication link [path] with a teller application executing on a computing device of a remote bank teller, on a display of the ATM;
[C] wherein the mobile device is configured to:
[C1] establish, by a mobile application executing on the mobile device, a bi-directional audio and video communication link [path] directly between the mobile application and the teller application without any connection between the mobile device and the ATM so that no audio or video data is shared between the mobile device and the ATM,
[C2] responsive to the user scanning the machine-readable code with the mobile device.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 10 recites “establish … a communication [path] between [a user] and [bank] teller” in Limitation C1, recites commercial or legal interactions because establishing a communication path between a user and bank teller recites “business relations” or pre-sales activities between the user and a bank. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Limitations B1, B2, and C2 are the required steps and data inputs for establishing a communication path between a user and bank teller and therefore, recite the same exception. Id.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Rep. Claim 10 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f); and/or (2) generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment— i.e., networking; MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: A computing system, comprising: an ATM, a mobile device executing a mobile application and a computing device executing a teller application; a machine-readable code; and a bidirectional audio and video communication link.
Regarding the computing system, comprising: an ATM, a mobile device executing a mobile application and a computing device executing a teller application; a machine-readable code; and a bidirectional audio and video communication link, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them or describes them using exemplary language as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶ 44 (“The mobile application is a mobile banking application associated with the user's bank as will be appreciated by a person of skill in the art. In other words, the mobile application is the individual bank's existing mobile banking application.”); ¶ 61 (“various changes and modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosure. It is intended that the appended claims be interpreted as including the embodiments described herein, the alternatives mentioned above, and all equivalents thereto.”); ¶ 2 (“Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) are known”); ¶ 44 (“compared to current Consumer Mobile Banking Applications, the mobile application described herein is updated with the addition of functionality that allows for two-way audio-video communication with the Teller-side ITM application. This can be achieved in any way that allows for the Application to gather video and audio data using the user mobile device hardware and present audio-video content to the user using the same”); ¶ 46 (“The transaction flow between the ITM Client Application and the Teller-side ITM Application however remains unchanged with all existing transactions and modules maintained … the authentication of the user to allow for any transactions also remains unchanged and is not impacted by this change on the method of communication … The only change in approach described herein is in the method for two-way audio-video communication.”); ¶ 62 (“All of the features disclosed in this specification (including any accompanying claims, abstract and drawings), and/or all of the steps of any method or process so disclosed, may be combined in any combination, except combinations where at least some of the features and/or steps are mutually exclusive. The invention is not restricted to any details of any foregoing embodiments.”) ¶ 40 (“the computing device may be a laptop, a desktop computer, a mobile device, a tablet or the like.”); ¶ 44 (“an additional backend service is used that is capable of generating a QR code which provides access to the two-way audio-video communication session that will be linked with the teller application. … The Consumer Mobile Banking Application and associated technology also integrates a backend service that is capable of generating a QR code which will provide the mobile application with access to the two-way audio-video session it will use for communication with the teller application.”); ¶ 42 (“The network 140 may be wired, wireless or a combination of wired and wireless.”). The generic computing device and mobile device, here, appears to perform calculations (functions) that are programmed by software. Spec. ¶ 44 (“the mobile application is stored in the memory of the mobile device and is executed on processor(s) of that device”), ¶ 45 (“the teller application is stored in the memory of the computing device and is executed on processor(s) of that device.”). This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow.
The displaying step, Limitation B2, fails to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements, a practical application, or inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(h) (citing Electric Power Group). Further, requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer also does not provide a practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Additionally, the machine-readable code is generated outside the scope of the claims and disclosure in any known way. Spec., ¶ 44 (“an additional backend service is used that is capable of generating a QR code which provides access to the two-way audio-video communication session that will be linked with the teller application … The Consumer Mobile Banking Application and associated technology also integrates a backend service that is capable of generating a QR code which will provide the mobile application with access to the two-way audio-video session it will use for communication with the teller application.”).
Regarding the bi-directional audio and video communication link, Applicant’s Specification explains that once the user has scanned the code, a communication module on the computing device of the remote teller and a communication module on the mobile device are both initiated to establish a bi-directional audio-video communications. Spec. ¶ 50. Audio and video communications are established “over the internet (e.g., via Wi-Fi, cellular data etc.).” Id. at ¶ 51. No further technical details are provided. Thus, Applicant takes the position that establishing bi-directional audio-video communications with two generic applications operating generic computer device is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”).
Limitations A, B, and C describe the ATM, mobile device, and computing device “configured to” perform the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Rep. Claim 10 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 1, 11 and 20 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 10. Independent Claims 1, 11 and 20 contain no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claims 1, 11 and 20 are also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 10 fails Step 2B because the claim as whole, even when considering the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and generic computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer and/or with basic computer components do not provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The pending claims’ combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, as explained above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents currently available generic computer technology, used in a conventional manner (individually generic). Third, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements relies on conventional computer components and functions. Spec. ¶¶ 61, 62 (steps/functions may be performed in any order); ¶¶ 2, 14, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 61, 62 (describing exemplary, known and generic computer equipment and networks). The negative functional limitation “without any direct connection … “ is not a specific mechanism like the self-referential table in Enfish.
Accordingly, the additional elements of Rep. Claim 1 are elements that have been recognized, based on Applicant’s own disclosure2, as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the field. See, Spec. ¶¶ 2, 14, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 61, 62; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Specifically, Applicant’s Specification describes the recited additional elements (i.e., the computing system, comprising: an ATM, a mobile device executing a mobile application and a computing device executing a teller application; a machine-readable code; and a bidirectional audio and video communication link) as being implemented using generic, off-the-shelf computing technology. These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) using known computer and computer-related components. Further, the “bidirectional audio and video communication link” was well-understood and merely operates on the generic components. Spec. ¶ 51. The Specification also shows that the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, displaying, and processing (e.g., performing logic or mathematical operations on) data are normal, well-understood operations of generic computer systems. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 2, 14, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 61, 62.
There is no indication in the claim language or in the Specification that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology or technical field. Rather, the additional elements simply implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer system at a high level of generality. Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, Rep. Claims 10 does not provide an inventive concept.
Independent Claims 20 is a system that performs the same abstract processing and generic computer operations recited in Rep. Claim 10. Independent Claims 1 and 11 are a computer-implemented method claims whose steps perform the same abstract processing and generic computer operations recited in Rep. Claim 10. Independent Claims 1, 11 and 20 add no additional elements beyond those of Rep. Claim 10 that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 also do not recite an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III). No dependent claims introduce a limitation that is not well understood, routine, or conventional individually or in combination with Independent Claims. MPEP § 2106.05(d). Every limitation is expressly acknowledged as known in the prior art based on Applicant’s Specification. Spec. ¶¶ 14, 44, 46, 49, 51.
Dependent Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 recite additional limitations that form part of the same abstract idea exception as recited in Independent Claims and contain the additional elements of: a camera (Claims 5, 6); a scanner application (Claim 5); a camera application (Claim 6); a terminal application (Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 17); a software module (Claims 9, 17); a microphone (Claims 18, 19); a speaker (Claims 18, 19). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception for the same reasoning as articulated for those additional elements in Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B supra. The computer equipment is generic and/or merely operates on generic equipment. Spec. ¶¶ 40, 49, 52. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. The pending claims in their combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents a currently available generic computer technology, used in the way in which it is commonly used (individually generic). Last, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements is not inventive. Spec., ¶¶ 61, 62 (steps/functions may be performed in any order); ¶¶ 2, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 61, 62 (known and generic (exemplary) computer equipment as explained and cited supra.) Further, Examiner finds the additional elements of Dependent Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 61, 62; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3–11, and 13–20 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 10 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crooks (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0300882) [“Crooks”] in view of Calman et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0265679) [“Calman”].
Regarding Claim 1, Crooks discloses:
A computer-implemented method for establishing a communication link between a mobile application executing on a mobile device of a user of an ATM and a teller application executing on a computing device of a remote bank teller, comprising:
(See at least ¶ 24, “the automated banking machine establishes a communication link between the remote service provider and the customer device.” “[I]f a user is having problems operating the ATM 100, an interface for conducting the transaction 206 may be provided by the application on the customer device 118.” ¶ 34. A remote service provider may be a “remote teller”. ¶ 32. See also, Fig. 16 and associated text ¶¶ 45–57, describing exemplary devices.)
detecting, at an ATM, an input event indicating that a user of the ATM wants to communicate with a bank teller;
(See at least ¶ 43, “FIG. 9 is a block diagram illustrating an example of an option for initiating a video conference with a remote service provider 114.” Fig. 9, “visual indicia 902.” See also, Fig. 17, step 1702); ¶ 59.)
responsive to detecting the input event, displaying a machine-readable code, comprising information enabling establishment of a bi-directional audio and video communication link with a teller application executing on a computing device of a remote bank teller, on a display of the ATM; and
(See at least ¶ 43, “the controller provides a visual indicia 902 on the representation of the user interface for the transaction 206 (which may be displayed on either the ATM UI 104 or on the customer device 118) to enable the customer device to establish a communication link between the customer device and the controller. Upon requesting a videoconference or assistance from the remote service provider 114, the customer may be instructed to scan a barcode, such as a QR code with the customer device 118 as indicated by 1002 in FIG. 10 or to tap the customer device 118 on the NFC interface as indicated by 1004 in FIG. 10.” See also, Fig. 10, “SCAN QR CODE 1002”). “The communication link enables audio, video, or a combination of audio and video data to be sent between the customer device and the remote service provider.” ¶ 24.)
responsive to the user scanning the machine-readable code with the mobile device, establishing, by a mobile application executing on the mobile device, the bi-directional audio and video communication link between the mobile application and the teller application
(See at least ¶ 43, where scanning “[t]he QR code … may provide the customer device 118 with data for communicating with the controller 110, so that the customer device 118 can communicate with the controller 110 and the controller 110 can setup the communication link between the customer device 118 and the remote service provider 114.” “At 1704, a link coupling a customer device with a remote service provider is established. In an example embodiment, separate links may be established with the remote service provider and the customer device. The automated banking machine may provide data to the customer device for establishing the link. For example, a QR code may be employed which the customer device can scan and obtain keying material or other parameters for a secure session.” ¶ 61. “[T]he controller 110 provides audio and video on data communication link 120 to the customer device 118 so that the videoconference is conducted on the user device 118.” ¶ 35. “FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an example embodiment where audio component of the videoconference 202 and video component of the videoconference 204 are provided through the customer device 118 while the ATM user interface 104 is employed for conducting the transaction. This can allow a customer to perform the transaction on the ATM while conducting the videoconference on the customer device 118.” ¶ 39; see also ¶ 63.)
without any direct connection between the mobile device and the ATM so that no audio or video data is shared between the mobile device and the ATM.
(See at least ¶ 36, “no interface for performing the transaction is provided on the ATM user interface 104 (e.g., the display may be blanked and/or no audio signals are output by the ATM 100).” “In particular embodiments, the ATM User Interface inputs and outputs can be redirected to the user device 118.” ¶ 35. “[T]he customer device 118 can communicate with the controller 110 and the controller 110 can setup the communication link between the customer device 118 and the remote service provider 114.” Examiner construes “without any direct connection” as “without a direct point-to-point connection”. The controller in Crooks (where the ATM controller 110 is an intermediary, not a direct endpoint connecting to the mobile device) satisfies this limitation because no direct path exists between the mobile device 118 and the ATM hardware. The mobile device communicates through the controller 110 infrastructure; the ATM camera, microphone, and speaker are bypassed entirely in the FIG. 3 embodiment per Crooks, ¶ 39. ATM user inputs and outputs may be re-directed to the user device.
To the extent the examiner does not find Crooks alone sufficient to reject this element, Calman teaches:
without any direct connection between the mobile device and the ATM
(See at least Claim 1, “transferring the user interaction session from the ATM to a
user's mobile communication device, wherein the transferred user interaction session is configured to continue on the mobile communication device.” See also, Abstract (“By transferring the user interaction session to the customer's mobile communication device, the customer limits their time interacting with the ATM and, thus, frees up the ATM for any other waiting customers); ¶ 37 (“In those embodiments in which the ATM 102 is configured to allow for transfer of a predetermined number of interactions/activities, the
interactions/activities that are deemed worthy of transfer may be those sessions which are typically time-consuming and/or those sessions which would benefit from the customer conducting them in a more private setting than is afforded by the ATM102.”)
so that no audio or video data is shared between the mobile device and the ATM.
(See at least ¶ 9, The user interaction session may include any activity conducted by the customer on the ATM, such as, but not limited to, a bill-pay transaction, a transfer transaction, an investment transaction or inquiry, a product/account enrollment activity, a video chat with financial institution personnel or the like.” See also, ¶¶ 14 (same), 61 (same), 64 (same).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined without any direct connection between the mobile device and the ATM so that no audio or video data is shared between the mobile device and the ATM, as taught by Calman, to the known invention of Crooks, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to “free[ ] up the ATM for any other waiting customers” and “move to a more private area to complete the user interaction session.” Calman, ¶ 6.
Regarding Claim 3, Crooks and Calman disclose:
The method of claim 1 and the mobile application
Crooks further discloses
wherein the mobile application is a mobile banking application associated with the user's bank.
(See at least ¶ 34, “the customer may employ an application on the customer device 118 to request help from a customer service representative or other person … while the customer is conducting a financial transaction [at an ATM].” The customer service representative may be a “remote teller”. ¶ 32.)
Regarding Claim 4, Crooks and Calman disclose:
The method of claim 1 and the machine-readable code
Crooks further discloses
wherein the machine-readable code is a one-dimensional or two-dimensional barcode.
(See at least ¶ 43)
Regarding Claim 7, Crooks and Calman disclose:
The method of claim 1.
Crooks further discloses
further comprising: executing, by the ATM, a terminal application that is configured to communicate with the teller application.
(See at least Fig. 1, “controller 110” and associated text ¶ 34, “the controller 110 is operable to establish a communication link that comprises communication links 120, 122 between the customer device 118 and the remote service provider responsive to an input received from the customer.” See also, ¶ 43 (same); ¶ 33 (“software controlled microprocessor”).)
Regarding Claim 8, Crook and Calman disclose:
The method of claim 7.
Crooks further discloses
further comprising: responsive to executing the terminal application, sending, by the ATM, a notification to the computing device indicating that a communication link needs to be established with the mobile device; and responsive to receiving the notification, executing, by the computing device, the teller application.
(Examiner interprets the italicized limitation as intended use that fails to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C). Sending and receiving a notification responsive to execution of the terminal application is interpreted as establishing a videoconferencing session between the teller and user. See at least Fig. 17, step 1708. Alternatively, See ¶¶ 61, 62 (using separate links to establish communications customized by the user).
Regarding Claim 9, Crooks and Calman disclose:
The method of claim 7, scanning the machine-readable code with the mobile device, and a mobile application that is configured to communicate with the teller application.
Crooks further discloses
further comprising: responsive to the user scanning the machine-readable code with the mobile device, initiating a software module within the mobile application that is configured to communicate with the teller application.
(Examiner interests “software module” broadly as the subset of mobile application instructions that perform the communication. See at least ¶ 43, where scanning “[t]he QR code … may provide the customer device 118 with data for communicating with the controller 110, so that the customer device 118 can communicate with the controller 110 and the controller 110 can setup the communication link between the customer device 118 and the remote service provider 114.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Crooks discloses:
A computing system, comprising: an ATM, a mobile device of a user of an ATM and a computing device of a remote bank teller, wherein the ATM is configured to:
(See at least Fig. 1)
The remaining limitations of Claim 10 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Crooks and Calman for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 18, Crooks and Calman disclose:
The method of claim 1.
Crooks further discloses
further comprising: capturing audio data, via a microphone of the mobile device via the communication link, transmitting the audio data from the mobile application to the teller application; and outputting the audio data via a speaker of the computing device.
(See at least Fig. 17. A video conference reasonably suggests capturing audio and video data. “The users can request a videoconference employing their user device, for example a mobile device such as a Smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer.” ¶ 28. A smartphone captures audio data via a microphone. “As another example, the customer may employ an application on the customer device 118 to request help from a customer service representative or other person. The communication link between the remote service provider 114 and customer device 118 allows a customer to employ the customer device 118 to communicate with a remote service provider 114 while the customer is conducting a financial transaction.” ¶ 34. “[T]he controller 110 provides audio and video on data communication link 120 to the customer device 118 so that the videoconference is conducted on the user device 118.” ¶ 35.)
Regarding Claim 19, Crooks and Block disclose:
The method of claim 1.
Crooks further discloses
further comprising: capturing audio data, via a microphone of the computing device via the communication link, transmitting the audio data from the teller application to the mobile application; and outputting the audio data via a speaker of the mobile device.
(See at least Fig. 17. A video conference reasonably suggests capturing audio and video data. “The users can request a videoconference employing their user device, for example a mobile device such as a Smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer.” ¶ 28. A smartphone captures audio data via a microphone. “As another example, the customer may employ an application on the customer device 118 to request help from a customer service representative or other person. The communication link between the remote service provider 114 and customer device 118 allows a customer to employ the customer device 118 to communicate with a remote service provider 114 while the customer is conducting a financial transaction.” ¶ 34. “[T]he controller 110 provides audio and video on data communication link 120 to the customer device 118 so that the videoconference is conducted on the user device 118.” ¶ 35.)
Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crooks and Cayman, and further in view of Phillips et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0051210) [“Phillips ‘210”]
Regarding Claim 5, Crooks and Calman disclose:
The method of claim 1, the machine-readable code, the mobile device, and the mobile application.
Crooks discloses a mobile banking application and mobile device scanning a machine-readable code QR code but is silent on using a camera and scanning application integrated into the mobile application. Thus, Crooks does not disclose but Phillips ‘210 discloses:
scanning the machine-readable code with a camera of the mobile device using a scanner application integrated into the mobile application.
(Examiner interprets “scanner application” as the function of the mobile application recognizing the machine-readable code. Spec. ¶ 49. See at least ¶ 23, “upon arriving at ATM 114, the user of mobile device 102 is presented with QR code 116 on the display screen of ATM 114. The mobile app executing on mobile device 102 may present the user with an option for obtaining this QR code 116 (or other code) from the ATM 114. For example, the mobile app may access a camera feature to allow the user to scan QR code 116 using a camera 103 built into mobile device 102. The mobile device 102 sends this QR code to cardless services 108 and on to pairing service 110, which recognizes the identifier for ATM 114 in scanned QR code 116. Accordingly, pairing service 110 is able to pair the transaction initiated from mobile device 102 with ATM 114 specifically on the basis of the identifier.” The mobile application recognizes the QR to communicate the identifier for pairing. See also, ¶ 35.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined scanning the machine-readable code with a camera of the mobile device using a scanner application integrated into the mobile application as explained in Phillips ‘210, to the known invention of Crooks, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to pair the ATM and mobile device for “complet[ing] the transaction at that ATM.” Phillips ‘210, ¶¶ 27, 35, 36.)
Regarding Claim 6, Crooks and Calman disclose:
The method of claim 1, the machine-readable code, the mobile device, and the mobile application.
Crooks discloses a mobile banking application and mobile device scanning a machine-readable code QR code but is silent on using camera application separate from the mobile application. Thus, Crooks does not disclose but Phillips ‘210 discloses:
further comprising: scanning the machine-readable code with a camera of the mobile device using a camera application [camera feature] that executes separately to the mobile application; and
(Examiner interprets “scanner application” as the function of the mobile application recognizing the machine-readable code. Spec. ¶ 49. See at least ¶ 23, “the mobile app may access a camera feature to allow the user to scan QR code 116 using a camera 103 built into mobile device 102.” The camera and camera feature is separate from the mobile application. See also, ¶ 24.)
responsive to the scanning, initiating the mobile application on the mobile device.
(See at least Figs. 2E, 2F, and 2G. After scanning, the mobile application indicates “processing” in Fig. 2G and “done” in Fig. 2H.)
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 5 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 6.
Claims 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crooks and Calman, and further in view of Phillips (U.S. Pat. No. 11,074,562) [“Phillips ‘562”]
Regarding Claim 11, Crooks discloses:
A computer-implemented method for establishing a communication link between a mobile application executing on a mobile device of a user of an ATM and a teller application executing on a computing device of a remote bank teller, comprising:
(This limitation recites similar language as Claim 1 and therefore stands rejected on the same grounds.)
detecting, at a mobile application executing on a mobile device of a user of an ATM, an input event indicating that the user wants to communicate with a bank teller;
(See at least ¶ 43, “FIG. 9 is a block diagram illustrating an example of an option for initiating a video conference with a remote service provider 114. In this example, the controller provides a visual indicia 902 on the representation of the user interface for the transaction 206 (which may be displayed on either the ATM UI 104 or on the customer device 118).”)
[…]
responsive to transmitting said information, establishing, by a teller application executing on the computing device, a communication link between the mobile application and the teller application without any connection between the mobile device and the ATM so that no data is shared between the mobile device and the ATM.
(This limitation recites similar language as Claim 1 and therefore stands rejected on the same grounds.)
Crooks discloses responsive to detecting the input event, by the mobile application, displaying a machine-readable code, comprising information enabling establishment of a communication link with the mobile application, on the display of the ATM. Crooks does not disclose displaying the machine-readable code on the mobile device. Crooks discloses the mobile device scanning the machine-readable code and transmitting the information comprised in the machine-readable code from the ATM to a computing device of a remote bank teller. Crooks does not disclose the ATM scanning the machine-readable code. Thus, Crooks does not disclose but Phillips ‘562 discloses:
responsive to detecting the input event, by the mobile application, displaying a machine-readable code, comprising information enabling establishment of a communication link with the mobile application, on a display of the mobile device; and
(See at least Figs. 2E, 2F, 2H, and 3C. A user stages a transaction in advance. Col. 11:26–34. The user device displays a QR code of the pre-staged transaction. Fig. 2F. The QR code is scanned by the ATM and cash is dispensed, which is communication with the user device and mobile application. Fig. 2H.)
responsive to the ATM scanning the machine-readable code, transmitting the information comprised in the machine-readable code from the ATM to a computing device of a remote bank teller; and
(See at least Fig. 3A and associated text col. 12:44–9, “at step 306, the ATM 114 may send an API message(s) to the backend system. The API message(s) from the ATM 114 may include the machine readable image 116 scanned by the camera 103 and the ATM identifier assigned to the ATM 114 by the pairing service 110.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined displaying the machine-readable code on the mobile device and the ATM scanning the machine-readable code as explained in Phillips ‘562, to the known invention of Crooks, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to allow “runners” or authorized users to interact with ATM machines when not carrying a bank issued ATM/Debit/Credit Card. Phillips ‘562, col. 2:51–col. 3:15.
Regarding Claim 13, Crooks, Calman, and Phillips ‘562 disclose:
The method of claim 11 and the mobile application.
Crooks further discloses
wherein the mobile application is a mobile banking application associated with the user's bank.
(See at least ¶ 34, “the customer may employ an application on the customer device 118 to request help from a customer service representative or other person … while the customer is conducting a financial transaction [at an ATM].” The customer service representative may be a “remote teller”. ¶ 32.)
Regarding Claim 14, Crooks, Calman, and Phillips ‘562 disclose:
The method of claim 11 and the machine-readable code.
Crooks further discloses
wherein the machine-readable code is a one-dimensional or two-dimensional barcode.
(See at least ¶ 43)
Regarding Claim 15, Crooks, Calman, and Phillips ‘562 disclose:
The method of claim 11, responsive to the ATM scanning the machine-readable code, and the ATM communicating with the teller application.
Crooks does not disclose but Phillips ‘562 discloses:
further comprising: responsive to the ATM scanning the machine-readable code, executing a terminal application [API] on the ATM that is configured to communicate with the teller application.
(See at least col. 12:44–9, “In some embodiments, at step 306, the ATM 114 may send an API message(s) to the backend system. The API message(s) from the ATM 114 may include the machine readable image 116 scanned by the camera 103 and the ATM identifier assigned to the ATM 114 by the pairing service 110.”)
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 11 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, Crooks, Calman, and Phillips ‘562 disclose:
The method of claim 15.
Crooks further discloses
further comprising: responsive to executing the terminal application, sending, by the ATM, a notification to the computing device indicating that a communication link needs to be established with the mobile device; and responsive to receiving the notification, executing, by the computing device, the teller application.
(Examiner interprets the italicized limitation as intended use that fails to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C). Sending and receiving a notification responsive to execution of the terminal application is interpreted as establishing a videoconferencing session between the teller and user. See at least Fig. 17, step 1708. Alternatively, see ¶¶ 61, 62 (using separate links to establish communications customized by the user).
Regarding Claim 17, Crooks, Calman, and Phillips ‘562 disclose:
The method of claim 11 and responsive to the teller application receiving the information comprised in the machine-readable code, by the computing device.
Crooks further discloses
further comprising: responsive to the teller application receiving the information comprised in the machine-readable code [request for video conference], by the computing device, sending a request to the mobile device to establish a communication link; and
(See at least Fig. 17, steps 1702, 1704; see also, ¶¶ 61, 62)
responsive to receiving the request, by the mobile device, initiating a software module within the mobile application that is configured to communicate with the teller application.
(Examiner interests “software module” broadly as the subset of mobile application instructions that perform the communication. See at least ¶ 43, where scanning “[t]he QR code … may provide the customer device 118 with data for communicating with the controller 110, so that the customer device 118 can communicate with the controller 110 and the controller 110 can setup the communication link between the customer device 118 and the remote service provider 114.”)
Regarding Claim 20, Crooks discloses
A computing system, comprising: an ATM, a mobile device of a user of an ATM and a computing device of a remote bank teller,
(See at least Fig. 1)
The remaining limitations of Claim 20 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 11 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Crooks, Calman, and Phillips ‘562 for the same rationale presented in Claim 11 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 11 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 20.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 PM (EST).
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
2 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").
Prosecution Insights