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 .
Application Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant amendments received.
Claims 2 and 13 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 have been amended.
Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are pending and have been examined.
This Office-Action is Final, necessitated by Applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections
Claims 8-10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for antecedent basis issues.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-221 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Acknowledgment of Issues Raised by Applicant
Applicant’s arguments drawn to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and Alice/Mayo analysis per the claims providing additional elements that go beyond the judicial exception and either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more, as the claims provide a technological solution to a technological problem and include additional elements that are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 (analysis continues below).
Examiner’s Response to Step 2A Prong II and Step 2B arguments
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant arguments that the claims are directed to an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or another technology or technical field and either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the following reasons:
The following Applicant arguments drawn to asserting a technological solution to a technological problem are not convincing per (A) not being commensurate with claim scope, (B) mischaracterizing conventional systems of the prior art, and/or (C) the claims failing to indicate the asserted improvement argued by Applicant:
Page 10 of Remarks, referencing ¶¶12,13 of Applicant specification:
“The specification identifies specific technical problems with conventional authentication systems… [¶12] [C]onventional devices, after a user has input a user ID and password, and the user has been authenticated based on the inputted information…. the user further needs to check a question and input an answer, which is troublesome for the user. Conventional authentication systems and methods are not user-friendly … [¶13] … the present disclosure … can ensure security related to money handling by using a user-friendly authentication method…”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument for the following reasons:
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that plenty of authentication systems / websites do not require additional questions for authentication, and authenticate after a single username/password being provided.
There is no indication that the above problem identified by Applicant is a technical one, as the problem being faced is merely the user’s annoyance of having to provide additional credentials. An abstract sequence of authentication steps absent of any computer technology could equally face the problem of coming across as onerous and annoying by virtue of having many required credentials in an ordered sequence. I.e., this aspect argued are not aspects necessarily drawn to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, but rather the abstract idea recited.
Applicant’s instant claims do not provide sufficient details indicating the above problem identified is solved by Applicant’s claimed invention and do not include components or steps that provide the purported improvement described in the specification. I.e., Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with claim scope – see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1): “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. … the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification”. For example, there is nothing in Applicant’s claim limitations of “a control device including processing circuitry to[:] … perform a second authentication process for the user based on the user information….” which disqualifies Applicant’s second authentication process as being one where “…the user further needs to check a question an[d] input an answer…” on the control device manually (i.e., the “troublesome” functionality).
Applicant’s claims do not indicate any specific mechanism by which this abstract problem is even addressed. Conversely, the claims, to Examiner, instead seems to suggest that the troublesome behavior is necessarily involved, per incorporating a requirement of an additional second authentication process performed with the user information after the first authentication process. Examiner understands the claimed “…second authentication process…” is broadly defined enough to encompass seamless/contactless authentication not requiring manual user intervention, but the claims do not include details of a mechanism that indicates such a solution is achieved, and specification does not provide written description support of such an embodiment.
Cursory arguments stating or otherwise implying the Applicant’s claimed authentication process is “user-friendly” and that conventional authentication processes are “not user-friendly” without any details to particular technological implementation details are not persuasive, especially when there is no specific identifiable mechanism rooted in computer technology underpinning the asserted distinction between Applicant’s claims and conventional authentication.
Page 10 of Remarks, referencing ¶¶56,66 of Applicant specification2:
“The specification discloses concrete technical improvements achieved by the claimed features … [¶56] The user ID and the password … are stored and managed in the authentication server …. The user ID and the password of the user are not included in the user information transmitted/received between the authentication server, the money handling server, the operation terminal and the money handling apparatus. Thus, security related to the authentication process using the user ID and the password can be enhanced. [¶66] When the user, who wants to perform money handling, inputs the user ID and the password only one time, the user is authenticated a plurality of times by the different devices. Thus, it is possible to ensure security related to money handling while realizing the user-friendly authentication method."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the overall thrust of the above argument indicating patent eligibility for the following reasons:
The fact that the user ID and password are stored at a server separately from other devices seeking authentication is not a technological solution to a technological problem for the technological environment of computer / computer network security – known forms of tokenization generally store credential information remotely and issue substitute or alternative credentials mapped to said (real) credentials, so as to decrease the risk of the true credentials. For example, see ¶5 of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20190122191 A1 (Filipiak): “Generating tokens and then using them, also known as “tokenization”, provides a solution to that problem by setting out to substitute certain sensitive data (such as for example bank data e.g. a bank card number or a bank account number) exchanged during electronic transactions by means of security tokens …”, and ¶3 of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170017959 A1 (Keresman): “In the field of data security, tokenization generally refers to a process whereby a real data element is replaced with a surrogate or substitute that is commonly referred to as a token. Generally, it is desirable to keep the value of the real data element secret or otherwise provide only limited access thereto to particular selected entities. Conventionally, the value of the token by itself may have no specific or readily discernable meaning. Rather, the token is merely a reference or identifier that correlates, via a tokenization system, to the real data. Conventionally, one cannot readily determine or otherwise obtain the value of the real data element from the token absent access to the tokenization system.”
Applicant’s specification and claims do not provide any particular mechanism by which “…the user is authenticated a plurality of times by the different devices…” after “…the user, who wants to perform money handling, inputs the user ID and the password only one time…”, and the claims do not include any such limitations or limitations that indicate such a result. Additionally, the above passage may generally involve re-use of the user information acting as a substitute for the user ID and password. I.e., the “user friendly” problem identified is not necessarily addressed by Applicant’s specification or claims, as there is no meaningful distinction between a substitute credential having to be re-entered multiple times and the real credential having to be re-entered multiple times for a user, when facing the (abstract) problem of the user further needing to enter subsequent credentials in a dissatisfactory manner. In summary, Applicant’s claims do not include sufficient details to indicate that the instant claims are necessarily limited to embodiments providing such an improvement, especially when the specification is cursory in how this is specifically achieved – see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1): “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. … the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification”.
Pages 11-12 of Remarks, referencing the claims3:
“Amended Claim 1 does not merely recite “authentication”. Rather, Claim 1 recites…a specific technical architecture with the following technical elements… an input terminal configured to receive authentication information and transmit it to a server … an authentication server that performs a first authentication process, and based on that data, generates user information from information registered in user profile data; … the user information is different from the authentication information; a control device that receives the user information … from the authentication server and performs a second authentication process. … These … elements define a specific distributed authentication architecture, not an abstract concept of “authentication””.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the overall thrust of the above argument indicating patent eligibility for the following reasons:
Examiner agrees with Applicant remark that “…Amended claim 1 does not merely recite “authentication”…” (page 11 of Remarks), but the additional elements outside of the recited “…authentication…” do no more than suggest a post-hoc implementation of the abstract authentication steps recited, where computer components conventional to computers are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea recited, such that the claim’s incorporation of those computer components merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Examiner agrees with Applicant remark that “…A … data content requirement…[of] the user information … [being] different from the authentication information” is present in the claims. However, that aspect is a distinction present only in the abstract idea recited, and is not indicative of additional elements integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner’s stance is supported by the fact that the user information generated may generally correspond to data derived (somehow) from abstract profile information of users (e.g, humans), and nothing directed to a particular technological environment – See ¶25 “…the authentication server 10 generates user information 102 from pieces of information registered in the profile data…”, in further view of ¶22 “…personnel information in each store is registered in the profile data. In the example shown in Fig. 2, job position, authority, age, … etc., have been registered in the profile data”.
Applicant’s specification provides no technological details indicating how the user information is generated in any technological sense beyond the fact that the server generally generates the data at a high degree of generality, and is based on abstract profile information. The most details Applicant specification provides with respect to the generation of user information, aside from the server generally generating it, is that it originates/ is derived from “…from one or more pieces of information registered in the profile data…” (¶24 of published specification), which may generally include “…job position, authority, age, terminal ID… etc.,” (¶22). I.e., beyond the fact that the server generally generates the data at a high degree of generality, the generation of the user information is nothing technical in nature.
The input terminal, authentication server, control devices, etc., sending and receiving information is nothing beyond what generic computing devices do, and is at best, insignificant extra solution activity that is conventional to computer technology.
The examiner respectfully disagrees the claims necessarily indicate “…a specific distributed authentication architecture…”, as the breadth of the claimed “…money handling apparatus…” (MHA), “…input terminal…” (IT), and “…control device…” (CD) can generally correspond to a single device in a relatively non-descript configuration, as is made apparent in view of the following disclosure of Applicant’s specification:
(¶80): “The money handling apparatus may serve as the control device, or the input terminal may serve as the control device”.
(¶18): “The operation terminal 30 is used by a user 200 …. The operation terminal 30 serves as an input terminal to which the user 200 inputs various kinds of information. For example, a smartphone, a tablet computer, or the like… [I.e., generic and non-descript hardware] … The operation terminal 30 may be a terminal that is … included in a money handling apparatus …,”
In light of the above, the input terminal (IT) indistinguishable from general-purpose user devices (¶18) can correspond to or otherwise incorporate both the control device (CD - ¶80) and the money handling device (MHA - ¶18), under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification – this is not indicative of “…a specific distributed authentication architecture…”.
Examiner’s position is further supported by ¶78 seemingly distancing the claimed invention from any “…specific distributed authentication architecture…” argued by Applicant. Specifically, ¶78 states: “The functions and features described herein may also be executed by various distributed components of a system… the distributed components may include one or more … client and server machines, which may share processing, in addition to various human interface and communication devices…”. Accordingly, the examiner respectfully disagrees the claims provide any inventive and “specific” distributed authentication architecture is present in the claims. It is also for the reasons above that Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s contentions that the claims
Pages 12-13 of Remarks:
“…the present claims reflect an improvement to how the … system itself operates: 1. Credential Isolation: … This ensures credentials are confined to the authentication server and [are] never transmitted to downstream devices, reducing attack surface. …”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the overall thrust of the above argument indicating patent eligibility for the following reasons:
The fact that the user ID and password are stored at a server separately from other devices seeking authentication is not a technological solution to a technological problem for the technological environment of computer / computer network security – known forms of tokenization generally store credential information remotely and issue substitute or alternative credentials mapped to said (real) credentials, so as to decrease the attack surface of the true credentials. For example, see ¶5 of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20190122191 A1 (Filipiak): “Generating tokens and then using them, also known as “tokenization”, provides a solution to that problem by setting out to substitute certain sensitive data (such as for example bank data e.g. a bank card number or a bank account number) exchanged during electronic transactions by means of security tokens …”, and ¶3 of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20170017959 A1 (Keresman): “In the field of data security, tokenization generally refers to a process whereby a real data element is replaced with a surrogate or substitute that is commonly referred to as a token. Generally, it is desirable to keep the value of the real data element secret or otherwise provide only limited access thereto to particular selected entities. Conventionally, the value of the token by itself may have no specific or readily discernable meaning. Rather, the token is merely a reference or identifier that correlates, via a tokenization system, to the real data. Conventionally, one cannot readily determine or otherwise obtain the value of the real data element from the token absent access to the tokenization system.”
With respect to Applicant’s arguments drawn to the lack of a 35 U.S.C. §§102/103 rejection serving as indication that the claims amount to significantly more under step 2B of Alice/Mayo analysis, examiner respectfully disagrees with the overall thrust of Applicant argument as the details of the abstract idea indicated by Applicant in remarks are an insufficient basis for patent eligibility under the “well-understood, routine, and conventional” rationale. As noted in Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151: “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty” (emphasis omitted). See also MPEP § 2106.05, underline emphasis added: “…An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." … Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)”. Accordingly, while Applicant is correct in that “…The Examiner cannot simultaneously find that the claims overcome the prior art and that the … [claim’s ordered combination]… merely recited well-understood, routine, conventional activity…”, the specificity of the abstract idea itself still does not indicate the claims amounting to significantly more under step 2B of Alice/Mayo analysis, as the use of the ineligible concept cannot amount to an inventive concept under step 2B of Alice/Mayo analysis – see BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
The additional elements “A money handling system comprising a money handling apparatus to…an input terminal configured to …a control device including processing circuitry configured to…”, “…to an authentication server …”, and “…from the authentication server…” of claim 1, the additional elements “…by a control device from an authentication server…”, “…wherein the authentication server…”, “…by the authentication server…”, “…by the authentication server…”, and “…by the control device…” of claim 11, and the additional elements “…a control device of a money handling system including a money handling apparatus to … and an input terminal that…”, “…to an authentication server…”, “…the control device comprising: processing circuitry configured to … ”, “…from the authentication server”, “…by the authentication server…”, “…by the authentication server” and “…by the authentication server…” of claim 12 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claims’ additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) is insufficient to impart patent eligibility under Alice. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
Hence, for the reasons listed above, as well as the reasons provided in 101 rejections further below, the Examiner respectfully maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea under step 2A (Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea), and do not amount to significantly more under step 2B (Step 2B: No, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception). The claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101, when analyzed under the Alice/Mayo test.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 8-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or applicant regards as the invention.
Antecedent Basis
Claims 8-10
Claims 8-10 recite "…The money handling system according to claim 2,…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19 and 20
Claims 19 and 20 recite "…The control device according to claim 13,…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the relevant test is the Alice/Mayo test4. The following analysis provided in this section results from the instant application’s claims being examined within the scope of the Alice/Mayo test framework.
With respect Step 1 of Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims are either directed to a system or method, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1 of Alice/Mayo Test: YES).
In light of step 2A Alice/Mayo analysis performed on the instant claims5, claims 1-20 have been determined to be directed to an abstract idea of authentication. The rationales for the aforementioned determination are explained further below.
When analyzed under prong I of revised step 2A, claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 each recite a method of organizing human activity,6 because independent claims 1, 11, and 12 each recite:
“1. …
receive an input of authentication information for authenticating a user of …[a] money handling apparatus,
and transmit the authentication information … [;] perform… a first authentication process for the user based on the authentication information and…[;] based on the first authentication process, generates user information from information on the user registered in user profile data, wherein the user information is different from the authentication information;
… receive the user information … and perform a second authentication process for the user based on the user information.”
“11. A money handling method comprising:
receiving, …, user information of a user of a money handling apparatus, the user information having been generated … based on a result of a first authentication process performed … based on the authentication information, and the user information having been generated … from information on the user registered in user profile data, wherein the user information is different from the authentication information; and performing … a second authentication process for the user based on the user information.”
“12. …
receive… an input of authentication information for authenticating a user of ... [a] money handling apparatus and transmit… the authentication information…, … receive user information of the user …, the user information having been generated …based on a result of a first authentication process performed … based on the authentication information, and the user information having been generated … from information on the user registered in user profile data, wherein the user information is different from the authentication information; and
perform a second authentication process for the user based on the user information.”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification7, the above claim limitations recite fundamental economic principles / practices of authenticating based on user information. (Step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo Test: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 12 is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong II of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test8:
The additional elements “A money handling system comprising a money handling apparatus to…an input terminal configured to …a control device including processing circuitry configured to…”, “…to an authentication server …”, and “…from the authentication server…” of claim 1, the additional elements “…by a control device from an authentication server…”, “…wherein the authentication server…”, “…by the authentication server…”, “…by the authentication server…”, and “…by the control device…” of claim 11, and the additional elements “…a control device of a money handling system including a money handling apparatus to … and an input terminal that…”, “…to an authentication server…”, “…the control device comprising: processing circuitry configured to … ”, “…from the authentication server”, “…by the authentication server…”, “…by the authentication server” and “…by the authentication server…” of claim 12 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claims’ additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) is insufficient to impart patent eligibility under Alice. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
The Applicant’s claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)).
The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement under Alice/Mayo analysis, and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (a) II). See the following:
MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015): “... our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”.
In light of the above rationales provided for step 2A Prong II analysis, the Examiner respectfully submits the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract authentication within a particular technological environment, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application). Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 12 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B9, claims 1, 11, and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 11, and 12, each when viewed as a whole, do not include elements amounting to significantly more, as their additional elements, each viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract authentication concept within a particular technological environment – see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014). Accordingly, when considered both separately and as an ordered combination, none of the elements of the independent claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself – see BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
Hence, independent claims 1, 11, and 12 are not patent eligible.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have each been given the full Alice/Mayo analysis, including analyzing the additional elements both individually and as an ordered combination (if any). The dependent claims are also held patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because of the same reasoning as above, and because the claim limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The rationales for the aforementioned determinations are explained further below.
With respect to dependent claims 7, 9, 18, and 20, their limitations each fail to indicate that the previously mentioned additional elements of their respective parent claims successfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, either individually or as an ordered combination. Accordingly, claims 7, 9, 18, and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 7, 9, 18, and 20 are also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 14, 15, and 17, they recite further details of the abstract idea, excepting limitations “wherein the processing circuitry [is further configured to]”. The aforementioned additional element does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claims 3, 14, 15, and 17 are also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 4, it recites further details of the abstract idea, excepting limitations “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to”, and “…of the control device…”. The aforementioned additional elements do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 4 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 5, it recites further details of the abstract idea, excepting limitations “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to”, and “…of the money handling apparatus…”. The aforementioned additional elements do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 5 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 6, it recites further details of the abstract idea, excepting limitations “…in the control device…”. The aforementioned additional elements do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 6, it recites further details of the abstract idea, excepting limitations “…in the control device…”. The aforementioned additional elements do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 8, it recites further details of the abstract idea, excepting limitations “…using the money handling apparatus…”, “…the processing circuitry is further configured to …”, “…from the authentication server…”, and “…in the control device…”. The aforementioned additional elements do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 10, it recites further details of the abstract idea, excepting limitations “…using the money handling apparatus…”, “…the processing circuitry is further configured to …”, “…from the authentication server…”, and “…in the control device…”. The aforementioned additional elements do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 10 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 19, it recites further details of the abstract idea, excepting limitations “…using the money handling apparatus…”, “…the processing circuitry ”. The aforementioned additional elements do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 19 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 21, it recites further details of the abstract idea, per reciting limitations “…wherein the authentication information is stored …”. The additional element, “…in the authentication server and is not transmitted to the control device…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 21 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 22, it recites further details of the abstract idea, per reciting limitations “…determine whether information included in the user information matches information managed …; and control … based on the second authentication process”. The additional elements “…wherein the processing circuitry of the control device is further configured to…”, and “…the money handling apparatus…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when considered as a whole, this claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 22 is also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
United States Patent Publication No. US 8229816 B1 (Mattison). Mattison is relevant for disclosing various users of different roles being able to be added /removed as users of cash recyclers by administrators remotely (See at least Col 6, lines 35-50).
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20180061155 A1 (Ghorpande). At least Figs. 6-8A, corresponding disclosure, and ¶¶3, 25: “…safe deposit boxes…” are pertinent.
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 MARK A MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-6624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/M.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 I.e., the subject matter claimed.
2 Underline emphasis added.
3 Underline emphasis added.
4 See MPEP § 2106 I.
5 See MPEP §§ 2106.04 I, II, (d) I.
6 See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) II
7 See MPEP § 2111.
9 See MPEP § 2106.05.
Prosecution Insights