DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 12/26/2025.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 2, 4-5, 7 and 18, and amendments to claims 1, 3 and 17 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. Claim 1 amendments resolve the antecedent basis issues of claim 14. Claims 14-16 are subject matter eligible in light of the independent claim 1’s amendments to include the structure of the teller machine, as well performing a data processing method to authorize the machine to dispense media. The combination of the teller machine, its components including data transmission, UI, physical media dispenser and security, and the multiple remote components present a meaningful limitation of the claimed mental process of data reconciliation and commercial interactions.
Regarding page 7, the independent claims now recite structure of the terminal including a user interface and a physical media driver, and a business application component to control said driver. However, the application of said elements are not seen until claim 14, and transmission of data between entities to reconcile transaction data is seen within the realm of mental processes, and commercial interactions being performed by networked computers, which is seen as computing technology in its ordinary capacity. The added limitation of the security boundary is seen as detail utilized by the dependent claims to incorporate a specific manner of applying the data reconciliation to operate the claimed terminal, rendering eligibility. As noted above, claims 14-16 are seen as subject matter eligible. Applicant is encouraged to incorporate claim 14 into the independent claims, and/or more specifically claim the performance detailed in the last paragraph of page 7 of remarks.
Regarding pages 8 and 9 of remarks, James teaches the remote nature of the three components communicating transaction data, including location data, as well as multiple data sets with exclusive data within each set, as well as correlating the sets with tags to link the sets together. Soussa teaches a security boundary between a user interface and business application component configured to authorize the ATM dispensation. Regarding pages 10 and 11, paragraph 20 of James teaches transaction data sets sent from ATM to collation system, then to monitoring system, as well as other data sets sent from ATM directly to monitoring system. Examiner interprets the teller machine, terminal handler component and settlement processing component as congruous to the ATM 25, collation system 60, and monitoring system 50 in James. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to further specify the claimed invention.
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, 6, 8-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: a teller sending a reconciliation message to a terminal handler including a first set of transaction data associated with a first financial transaction at the teller, terminal handler sending the message to settlement processing, processing receiving a second set of transaction data, and processing determining correlation data based on the first and second data, and the first set of data excludes elements of the second set of transaction information, and the first data corresponded to second data associated with first data. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes/concepts performed in the mind, including an observation, evaluation, or opinion.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: a computer, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a machine with a component configured to transmit data to a remote component, a UI, and a media dispenser, and a security boundary authorized a component to dispense media, a component(s), and machine transmission, individually and in combination, merely use a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites limitations of the data set and are seen as part of the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites the message includes a validated token. Claims 8 and 9 recite additional components. Claim 10 recites the backend components as at least one of a database, application or program. Claims 11-13 recite the teller machine is either a cash recycler or physical media/cash/valuable media dispensing device. These are seen as technology in its ordinary capacity, alone and in combination with independent claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 2016/0148179) in view of Soussa (AU 2010241389).
Claims 1 and 17. James teaches a computer-implemented method for data reconciliation, the method comprising the steps of:
a teller machine transmitting a reconciliation message to a terminal handler component that is remote to the teller machine, (James Figure 1 and para. 4 showing data transmission from ATM to manager; para. 20 showing data into collation system; paragraphs 18 and 19 showing remote data transmission)
the reconciliation message including a first set of transaction data associated with a first financial transaction at the teller machine, the teller machine including: (para. 58 showing data as ATM activity including withdrawal transactions; paras. 18 and 19 showing financial transaction data)
a business application component configured to perform the transmitting of the reconciliation message to the terminal handler component, (para. 18 showing ATM operator system 30 providing data to remote system)
a user interface, (para. 45 showing user input on computer embodiment)
a media device driver configured to dispense physical media, and (para. 21 showing ATM having product dispenser)
the terminal handler component transmitting the reconciliation message to a settlement processing component that is remote to the teller machine and the terminal handler component, (paras. 19 and 20 showing data from ATMs to ATM collation system to computer monitoring system over a internet network)
the settlement processing component receiving a second set of transaction data, and (para. 20 showing multiple ATM data feeds)
the settlement processing component determining correlation data for the first financial transaction based on the first set of transaction data and the second set of transaction data; (para. 58 showing reconciliation of transaction data from multiple data sets)
wherein the first set of transaction data excludes one or more elements of transaction information that are included in the second set of transaction data and correspond to second financial transactions associated with the first financial transaction. (para. 28 showing multiple data feeds with heterogenous characteristics, and analysis for association of data between feeds; see also para. 34) Examiner interprets heterogenous data feeds as having different data within, therefore are different, and not including data from other feeds, thereby reading on the limitation that dataset 1 does not include data from dataset 2.)
James teaches an ATM dispenser, and ensuring correct dispensing by data reconciliation in para. 21. It does not, but Soussa teaches:
a security boundary persisting between the user interface and the business application component such that only the business application component is authorized to control the media device driver. (Soussa paragraphs 60-63, 165 and 167 showing UI asking permission from validator to operate dispenser after validation process) This limitation is interpreted in accordance with paragraph 16 of the specification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of data transmission and correlation in James, with the known technique of permissions-based ATMs in Soussa, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for product security. See para. 188 of Soussa.
Claim 17 additionally. A data processing system for data reconciliation, the system comprising a processor configured. (para. 73 showing system with processor)
Claim 3. James as modified by Soussa teaches a method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the one or more elements of transaction information includes one or more of communication records, location, time, and identity of a transaction performer for one or more of the second financial transactions. (James para. 26 showing information including a time of transaction)
Claim 6. James as modified by Soussa teaches a method as claimed in claim 1. James does not teach tokens, but Soussa teaches wherein the reconciliation message includes a validated token. (Soussa paragraphs 33-35 showing validation token in transaction data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of data transmission and correlation in James, with the known technique of tokenized validation in in Soussa, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for said data transmission. See Soussa paragraphs 6-9 for explanation of validation method.
Claim 8. James as modified by Soussa teaches a method as claimed in claim l wherein the settlement processing component receives the second set of transaction data from one or more backend components. (James paragraph 37 showing second data from system to analysis engine)
Claim 9. James as modified by Soussa teaches a method as claimed in claim 8 wherein the method comprises the step of the settlement processing component transmitting the correlation data to the one or more backend components. (James para. 38 showing analysis engine output to grouping analysis; para. 29 showing output back to system)
Claim 10. James as modified by Soussa teaches a method as claimed in claim 8 wherein the backend component comprises at least one of a database, a software application, or a computer program. (para. 73 showing system embodied as a program)
Claim 11. James as modified by Soussa teaches the method as claimed in claim 1. James teaches ATMs. It does not, but Soussa teaches wherein the teller machine comprises a teller cash recycler machine. (Soussa para. 172 showing a note recycler.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of data transmission and correlation in James, with the known technique of cash recycling in Soussa, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for employment of standardized cash management methods. See Soussa paragraph 173 for support of cash recycling use.
Claim 12. James as modified by Soussa teaches a method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the teller machine comprises a physical media dispensing device. (James para. 21 showing ATMs as product dispenser)
Claim 13. James as modified by Soussa teaches a method as claimed in claim 12 wherein the physical media comprises at least one of cash or valuable media. (James para. 1 showing cash dispensing machines)
Claim 14. James as modified by Soussa teaches the method as claimed in claim 1. James does not, but Soussa teaches wherein the method comprises the steps of:
a user interface component of the teller machine receiving a service request from a user, (Soussa paragraphs 60-63 showing user input for service)
transmitting a service request message from the user interface component to the business application component, (Soussa paragraph 62 showing validator receiving input from user request)
the business application component receiving a validation message, and (para. 63 showing receiving of digital token by validator)
the business application component transmitting a control message to a media device driver of the teller machine to control the media device driver to dispense physical media based on the service request message and the validation message. (Paragraphs 165 and 167 showing dispensing mechanism receiving message for operation from validator)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of data transmission and correlation in James, with the known technique of cash management in Soussa, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for employment of standardized cash management methods. See Soussa paragraph 169 for support of currency dispensing.
Claim 15. James as modified by Soussa teaches the method as claimed in claim 14. James does not, but Soussa teaches wherein the method comprises the steps of:
the business application component transmitting an authorization request message to a media authorization component, and (Soussa paragraphs 74-75 showing validator requests from central server network.)
the media authorization component transmitting the validation message to the business application component. (Paragraph 75 showing permission from network for validation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of data transmission and correlation in James, with the known technique of tokenized validation in in Soussa, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for said data transmission. See Soussa paragraphs 6-9 for explanation of validation method.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Soussa, and in further view of Adari (US 20190087817).
Claim 16. James as modified by Soussa teaches a method as claimed in claim 15. It does not, but Adari teaches wherein the method comprises the step of the media authorization component generating a token based on the authorization request message. (Para. 84 showing generation of token for transaction authorization.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of data transmission and correlation in James as modified by Soussa, with the known technique of token generation in Adari, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for tokens to be generated.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627