DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This application is in response to Request for Reconsideration dated November 5, 2025.
2. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
4. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
- Claim 1, as amended, recites in part in the second limitation, “…wherein the remote computing device comprises a processor, memory, and circuit board configured to execute a remote terminal manger”. This appears to be a typographical error and for purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret “manger” as manager, however appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
5. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e. the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
The preamble of the instant claim 1 recites "[a] method for facilitating transactions with a remote computing device, comprising:”
The preamble of the instant claim 6 recites "[a] system for facilitating transactions and payments with a remote computing device, the system comprising:”
In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claims. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or an intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation given patentable weight. Rowe v. Dror, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2111.02.
In the instant case, “for facilitating transactions with a remote computing device,” as recited in the preamble only states a purpose and/or the intended use of the invention and accordingly is not being assigned any patentable weight.
Similarly in the instant case, the following italicized limitations are expressing the intended result of a process step positively recited and are not given weight:
As in Claim 1:
actuating a function of a remote terminal manager residing in the remote computing device in order to facilitate communication of transaction instructions from the terminal manager to the terminal agent, wherein the remote terminal manager replaces a device management system to prevent unauthorized control of transactions by removing direct access points within the financial self-service terminal;
transmitting, by the remote terminal manager, the unique identifier to actuate one or more business applications, wherein actuating comprises providing a signal that initiates technical operations across a distributed system including the processor and memory;
providing the unique identifier to a service provider to facilitate remote processing of the information in furtherance of the transaction; and
associating the unique identifier with a user account to facilitate completion and record-keeping.
As in Claim 6:
receiving a transaction request from the financial self-service terminal to move funds or to obtain information in furtherance of a transaction between a purchaser and a vendor;
actuating a function of a remote terminal manager to facilitate bidirectional communication of transaction instructions between the terminal manager and the terminal agent, wherein the remote terminal manager replaces a device management system within the financial self-service terminal to prevent unauthorized transaction control by requiring remote device location for system access; transmitting, by the remote terminal manager, the unique identifier to actuate one or more business applications for processing transaction request, wherein the actuation initiates technical operations across the processor and memory of the distributed system.
providing the unique identifier to a service provider to facilitate remote processing of the information in furtherance of the transaction;
associating the unique identifier with a user account to facilitate completion and record-keeping;
and one or more remote monitoring programs and systems (RMS) configured to act with and through the terminal manager in order to keep under systematic review and record the operations of the financial self-service terminal pursuant to monitoring applications residing at the financial self-service terminal and remote server.
As in Claim 2:
further comprising receiving an input of the unique identifier at a remote server, wherein the unique identifier corresponds to the transaction notification and actuates business applications to perform the transaction request.
As in Claim 3:
wherein the transaction request is submitted for information and for notifying the vendor and/or an account holder.
As in Claim 5:
permitting a remote host to control operations of the financial self-service terminal;
providing an application programming interface configured to be operated by the remote host;
providing one or more proprietary permission keys known only to the remote host and configured to enable application functionality on the financial self-service terminal by the remote host; and
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment filed November 5, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
As in Claim 1:
actuating a function of a remote terminal manager residing in the remote computing device in order to facilitate communication of transaction instructions from the terminal manager to the terminal agent, wherein the remote terminal manager replaces a device management system to prevent unauthorized control of transactions by removing direct access points within the financial self-service terminal;
transmitting, by the remote terminal manager, the unique identifier to actuate one or more business applications, wherein actuating comprises providing a signal that initiates technical operations across a distributed system including the processor and memory.
As in Claim 6:
actuating a function of the remote terminal manager to facilitate bidirectional communication of transaction instructions between the terminal manager and the terminal agent, wherein the remote terminal manager replaces a device management system within the financial self-service terminal to prevent unauthorized transaction control by requiring remote device location for system access, transmitting, by the remote terminal, the unique identifier to actuate one or more business applications for processing transaction request, wherein the actuation initiates technical operations across the processor and memory of the distributed system;
Applicant’s specification does disclose the following:
“The block diagram presented in FIG. 6 shows a comparison between security processes and information processing for an FST that operates in the current configuration versus an FST operating in accordance with this disclosure. This disclosure may fundamentally change information processing and issuance of instructions by the DMS inside the FST (in the current FST architecture) by disabling that process, relocating information processing to the remote host, and applying strong encryption to simple commands issued by the remote host (referring to FIG. 6, the secure communications between the remote terminal manager and the various FST functions are indicated by “locked” symbols.). The remote terminal management system may replace DMS that resides inside the FST in the current configuration (except only the terminal log function that records actions taken by the FST) and thereby adds a layer of security to ensure the validity of the commands issued by the remote host, which materially diminishes the ability of criminals to fraudulently extract currency or transfer value by taking over the DMS. By removing the independent decision-making process that controls FST functions to a remote host and adding security as well as materially reducing the information processing burden on the FST, this disclosure introduces a new and unprecedented process for conducting financial transactions at an FST.” (See Applicant Spec para 75)
While the remote terminal management system is disclosed in that it may replace the DMS that resides inside the FST that adds a layer of security and removing independent decision-making process that controls FST functions, there is no disclosure indicating “to prevent unauthorized control of transactions by removing direct access points” or “…to prevent unauthorized transaction control by requiring remote device location for system access”.
There is also no disclosure of technical operations across a distributed system as claimed in the independent claims. The recitations are broader than the specification discloses. Dependent claims 2-5 are further rejected as based upon a rejected base claim.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
7. Claims 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the following:
“receiving a transaction notification at the remote computing device via the financial self-service terminal, wherein the remote computing device comprises a processor, memory, and circuit board configured to execute a remote terminal manger [sic]”
“actuating a payment submission by a specified terminal agent residing in the financial self-service terminal, wherein the terminal agent is distinct and operates separately from the remote terminal manager”;
“actuating a function of a remote terminal manager residing in the remote computing device in order to facilitate communication of transaction instructions from the terminal manager to the terminal agent, wherein the remote terminal manager replaces a device management system to prevent unauthorized control of transactions by removing direct access points within the financial self-service terminal”
“transmitting, by the remote terminal manager, the unique identifier to actuate one or more business applications, wherein actuating comprises providing a signal that initiates technical operations across a distributed system including the processor and memory”
There is insufficient and imperfect antecedent basis for the bolded limitations as disclosed above. Further, the scope of the claim is unclear as recited. The first reference to a terminal agent is as to “a specified terminal agent”, however the further references are to “the terminal agent”. These references should be to “the specified terminal agent” in the case that there is only one terminal agent intended to be claimed.
As to the “a remote terminal manger [sic]”, the claim then refers to “the remote terminal manager”, however then again refers to “a remote terminal manager” and “the remote terminal manager”. Are there multiple remote terminal managers being claimed? Or is this a typographical error? Examiner will proceed as if the claims properly recited one remote terminal manager and a specified terminal agent refers to the same terminal agent in each instance, which should be referred to as “the specified terminal agent” in subsequent recitations.
Claim 6 recites the following:
“a remote computing device including a processor, memory, and circuit board;
“a remote terminal manager residing in the memory and executable by the processor”
“a terminal agent residing in a financial self-service terminal, wherein the terminal agent is distinct from and operates independently of the remote terminal manager;”
“actuating a payment submission by the specified terminal agent residing in the financial self-service terminal;”
“receiving an input of the unique identifier at a remote server”
“actuating a function of the remote terminal manager to facilitate bidirectional communication of transaction instructions between the terminal manager and the terminal agent, wherein the remote terminal manager replaces a device management system within the financial self-service terminal to prevent unauthorized transaction control by requiring remote device location for system access, transmitting, by the remote terminal, the unique identifier to actuate one or more business applications for processing transaction request, wherein the actuation initiates technical operations across the processor and memory of the distributed system;
“and one or more remote monitoring programs and systems (RMS) configured to act with and through the terminal manager in order to keep under systematic review and record the operations of the financial self-service terminal pursuant to monitoring applications residing a6t the financial self-service terminal and remote server.”
Similarly to the issue raised above, the claim recites “a terminal agent”, “the terminal agent” and “the specified terminal agent” then reverts back to “the terminal agent”. There is insufficient and imperfect antecedent basis for the bolded limitations as disclosed above. Further, the scope of the claim is unclear as recited. If Applicant is intending to claim one terminal agent, then the recitations should uniformly refer to either “the terminal agent”. If there are multiple terminal agents being recited, Applicant should uniformly indicate those recitations appropriately. In the case that Applicant is intending to recite a specified terminal agent, the subsequent references should be to “the specified terminal agent”.
There is also an issue with the recitations of a remote computing device, a remote terminal manager, the terminal manager, the remote terminal and the remote terminal manager. It is now unclear if Applicant is attempting to claim only a remote terminal manager, which should subsequently be referred to as the remote terminal manager in each further reference or a remote terminal manager and another terminal manager. It is unclear if this is an antecedent basis issue or an attempt to claim more systemization that has not clearly been claimed.
The claim also refers to the remote terminal and a remote computing device – as currently recited, it is unclear if these refer to the same element or different elements. Applicant is requested to clarify the systemization of the claim.
Additionally, in the “actuating a function…” limitation, the claim recites “the distributed system” for which there is insufficient antecedent basis as there is no prior reference to a distributed system prior in the claim.
The claim also refers to “a remote server” and “remote server” as noted above. It is unclear if this is referring to the same remote server, different remote servers or should be recited as “a remote server” and “the remote server”.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Based on Applicant’s explanation in their response and their amendments, it appears that there are some issues with the clarity of the recitations that must be resolved in the claims.
Applicant argues that the FST computing device 105 includes a processor, memory and circuit board that operatively connect to execute specific software modules. (See Applicant’s Arguments dated 11/05/2025, page 9 and Figure 3) Applicant continues arguing that the terminal agent 180 residing in the FST device is distinct from the remote terminal manager 250, residing in the remote computing device 205. (Id.)
The identified remote computing device 205 corresponds to the server computing device 205 identified in Figure 3. As noted by Applicant’s specification, “[t]he method includes receiving a transaction notification at the remote computing device, the transaction notification comprising a payment amount that is relevant to the transaction that is the subject of the transaction notification; generating a unique transaction initiation message, in a format specified and implemented by the manufacturer of the FST, the unique message corresponding to the transaction, thereby actuating the function of a remote Terminal Manager, which resides in a central and remote server, in order to facilitate communication of transaction instructions from the Terminal Manager to the Terminal Agent in furtherance of the transaction; and associating the unique identifier with a user account to facilitate completion and record-keeping.” (See Applicant Spec para 17)
The specification discloses the FST computing device 105, which may be a personal computer, a server, or any computing device and/or data processing apparatus and may include a circuit board that may be operatively connected to a processor and a memory. (See Applicant Spec para 48) The specification further notes that one or more software modules 130 may be downloaded over a network to storage 190 from another device or system via communication interface 150 for use within the transaction processing system. (See Applicant Spec para 52)
The specification continues, disclosing that to enable the operation of terminal agent 180, which disables the legacy software in the FSS [sic] terminal and securely enables the remote host (not shown) to control operations of the FSS [sic] terminal, this disclosure identifies a unique sign on code or private key for each brand of legacy software that creates a cryptographic handshake and secure pairing of the FSS to the remote host. (See Applicant Spec para 58)
Applicant’s specification further discloses the following;
“At various points during the operation of transaction processing system 100, computing device 105 may communicate with one or more computing devices housing business applications 270, such as those provided and/or maintained by one or more individuals and/or entities, such as service provide 200 and/or application vendor 315 and/or account holder 300. Such computing devices may transmit and/or receive data to/from computing device 105, via server computing device 205, thereby initiating, maintaining, and/or enhancing the operation of the transaction processing system 100. Computing devices 205 may be in direct communication with computing device 105, indirect communication with computing device 105, and/or may be communicatively coordinated with computing device 105. While such computing devices may be practically any device capable of communication with computing device 105, certain computing devices (e.g., that of service provider 200) may be servers, through practically any computing device that is capable of transmitting and/or receiving data to/from computing device 105 could be similarly substituted.” (See Applicant Spec para 64)
The current recitations do not disclose that the remote computing device is in fact the server computing device 205 or that the function of a remote terminal manager resides in a central and remote server of a financial institution and utilizes strong cryptographic encryption that adds additional security to the communications.
Further, in reference to Claims 2 and 6, the claims also recite “receiving an input of the unique identifier at a remote server”. It is unclear what element this corresponds to in terms of how the remote server is connected to the remote computing device to effectuate this step.
As the specification and recitations leave open the possibility that virtually any computing device may be used, the claims do not bound the claims to a specific implementation as Applicant argues they do. In order to provide additional security and architectural changes that allegedly provide specific technical benefits, the claims will need additional disclosure of the particular systemization and security protocols that provides the benefits argued for, which are missing in the claims.
As amended, it is unclear if the independent claims even refer to the same invention. The FST of Figure 3 features an RMS, however no DMS, while the ATM of Figure 6 discloses a DMS that replaces the DMS in an ATM. It appears that Applicant has attempted to merge the separate embodiments.
Additionally, the system structure of Claim 6 is now unclear. As currently recited, the claims recite a remote computing device including a processor, memory, and a circuit board; a remote terminal manager residing in the memory and executable by the processor; a terminal agent residing in a financial self-service terminal, wherein the terminal agent is distinct from and operates independently of the remote terminal; and then one or more processors configured to interact with a computer-readable medium for performing operations followed by a number of method steps.
It is unclear how the one or more processors configured to interact with a computer-readable medium fits within the system. Is this part of the remote computing device, a financial self-service terminal, the remote server or some other element? Applicant is requested to clarify the bounds of the claim scope.
Examiner will reevaluate the claim set upon further explanation and amendment to discern whether this is an issue of the manner of the amendments made or if there are in fact two separate inventions being claimed. Examiner will apply art as best understood at this time.
Dependent Claims 2-5 are further rejected as based upon a rejected base 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.
8. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a method claim. Claim 6 recites a system claim.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of facilitating transactions. This idea is described by the following limitations:
receiving a transaction request to move funds or to obtain information in furtherance of a transaction between a purchaser and a vendor;
receiving a transaction notification,
the transaction notification comprising a payment amount that is relevant to the transaction that is the subject of the transaction notification;
actuating a payment submission;
generating a unique identifier or a unique transaction initiation message, the unique identifier or unique transaction initiation message being in a format specified, the unique identifier or unique transaction initiation message corresponding to the transaction notification;
actuating a function in order to facilitate communication of transaction instructions;
providing the unique identifier to a service provider to facilitate remote processing of the information in furtherance of the transaction; and
associating the unique identifier with a user account to facilitate completion and record-keeping.
Claim 6 recites the abstract idea of facilitating transactions and payments. This idea is described by the following limitations:
receiving a transaction request to move funds or to obtain information in furtherance of a transaction between a purchaser and a vendor;
receiving a transaction notification, the transaction notification comprising a payment amount that is relevant to the transaction that is the subject of the transaction notification;
actuating a payment submission;
generating a unique identifier or a unique transaction initiation message, the unique identifier or unique transaction initiation message being in a format specified, the unique identifier or unique transaction initiation message corresponding to the transaction notification;
receiving an input of the unique identifier;
actuating a function to facilitate bidirectional communication of transaction instructions;
transmitting the unique identifier to actuate one or more business applications for processing the transaction request,
providing the unique identifier to a service provider to facilitate remote processing of the information in furtherance of the transaction;
associating the unique identifier with a user account to facilitate completion and record-keeping;
executing the transaction request; and
notifying an account holder and/or application vendor of execution of the transaction;
The abstract ideas describe certain methods of organizing human activity. As recited above, the series of steps recited describe to certain methods of organizing human activity, as the steps involve fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
Claim 1 recites a remote computing device wherein the remote computing device comprises a processor, memory, and circuit board configured to execute a remote terminal manager, a financial self-service terminal, a specified terminal agent, the terminal agent, and a remote terminal manager residing in the remote computing device, and a device management system.
Claim 6 recites a remote computing device including a processor, memory, and circuit board, a remote terminal manager residing in the memory and executable by the processor, a terminal agent in a financial self-service terminal, one or more processors configured to interact with a computer-readable medium, a remote server, a device management system, the distributed system, one or more remote monitoring programs and systems (RMS) configured to act with and through the terminal manager, and monitoring applications.
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In particular, the claims only recite a remote computing device comprising a processor, memory and circuit board configured to execute a remote terminal manager, a financial self-service terminal, a specified terminal agent, the terminal agent, a remote terminal manager residing in the remote computing device, a device management system, a remote computing device including a processor, memory, and circuit board, a remote terminal manager residing in the memory and executable by the processor, a terminal agent in a financial self-service terminal, one or more processors configured to interact with a computer-readable medium, a remote server, the distributed system, one or more remote monitoring programs and systems (RMS) configured to act with and through the terminal manager, and monitoring applications which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 6 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory and electronically scanning or extracting data– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“The following detailed description is directed to systems and methods for facilitating cloud-based transactions at FSTs. The referenced systems and methods are now described more fully with reference to the accompany drawings, in which one or more illustrated embodiments and/or arrangements of the systems and methods are shown. The systems and methods are not limited in any way to the illustrated embodiments and/or arrangements as the illustrated embodiments and/or arrangements described are merely exemplary of the systems and methods, which can be embodied in various forms, as appreciated by one skilled in the art. Therefore, it is to be understood that any structural and functional details disclosed herein are not to be interpreted as limiting the systems and methods, but rather are provided as a representative embodiment and/or arrangement for teaching one skilled in the art one or more ways to implement the systems and methods. Accordingly, aspects of the present systems and methods can take the form of an entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.), or an embodiment combining software and hardware. One of skill in the art can appreciate that a software process can be transformed into an equivalent hardware structure, and a hardware structure can itself be transformed into an equivalent software process.” (See Applicant Specification para 35)
“Referring to FIG. 1, there is shown a system 2 for facilitating transactions and payments with a remote computing device. The system may include an FST device 4, which may be an ATM or other similar device configured to facilitate financial transactions, wherein the FST device may include a terminal agent 6, a customer screen 8, a mechanism for device security 10, and remote monitoring services (RMS) 12. The terminal agent 6 may include various data and instructions for operating a financial transaction, such as inputted or stored data from a user, along with programmed steps in furtherance of a financial transaction. The customer screen 8 may be a user interface (e.g., with a touchscreen) with which a user may interact with or instruct the FST device. Device security 10 may include validation mechanisms, secured housing structures, and/or other security modules. RMS 12 may include technology, such as wireless transmitters, that would enable an FST operator to monitor aspects of FST device 4, regardless of whether FST device 4 is being employed by a user.” (See Applicant Specification para 39)
“Referring to FIG. 3, there is shown a system 100, in a diagram form, for facilitating transactions and payments with a remote computing device. The system 100 may, in one arrangement, include FST computing device 105, which may be a personal computer, a server, or any computing device and/or data processing apparatus. The computing device 105 may include a circuit board 140 that may be operatively connected to a processor 110 and a memory 120. The processor 110 may execute instructions for software that may be loaded into memory 120. Processor 110 can be a number of processors, a multi-processor core, or some other type of processor, depending on the particular implementation. Further, processor 110 can be implemented using a number of heterogeneous processor systems in which a main processor is present with secondary processors on a single chip. As another illustrative example, processor 110 can be a symmetric multiprocessor system containing multiple processors of the same type.” (See Applicant Specification para 48)
“The memory 120 and/or a storage 190 may be accessible by processor 110, thereby enabling processor 110 to receive and execute instructions stored on memory 120 and/or on storage 190. Memory 120 may be, for example, a random-access memory (RAM) or any other suitable volatile or non-volatile computer readable storage medium. In addition, memory 120 may be fixed or removable. Storage 190 may take various forms. For example, storage 190 may contain one or more components or devices such as a hard drive, a flash memory, a rewritable optical disk, a rewritable magnetic tape, or a combination of the above. Storage 190 also may be fixed or removable.” (See Applicant Specification para 49)
“One or more software modules 130 may be encoded in storage 190 and/or in memory 120, as well as include screen displays 160, hardware operations 162, RMS 164, device security 166, and terminal agent 180. The software module 130 may comprise one or more software programs or applications having computer program code, or a set of instructions executed in processor 110. Such computer program code or instructions for carrying out operations for aspects of the systems and methods disclosed herein may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object-oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++, Python, JavaScript, or the like, along with any conventional procedural programming language, such as the “C” programming language or other, similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on computing device 105, partly on computing device 105, as a stand-alone software package, partly on computing device 105 and partly on a remote computer/device 205, or entirely on the remote computer/device or server 205. In the latter scenario, the remote computer can be connected to computing device 105 through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet 160 using an Internet Service Provider).” (See Applicant Specification para 50)
“One or more software modules 130, including program code/instructions, may be in a functional form on one or more computer readable storage devices (such as memory 120 and/or storage 190) that may be selectively removable. The software modules 130 may be loaded onto or transferred to computing device 105 for execution by processor 110. The program code of software modules 130 and one or more computer readable storage devices (such as memory 120 and/or storage 190) may form a computer program product.” (See Applicant Specification para 51)
“Furthermore, in certain implementations, one or more software modules 130 and/or transaction processing application 230 may be configured to execute at the request or selection of a user of computing device 205 (or any other such user having the ability to execute a program in relation to computing device 105, such as network administrator), while in other implementations, computing device 105 may be configured to automatically execute software module 130, without requiring an affirmative request to execute. In addition, other information and/or data relevant to the operation of the present system and methods (such as screen displays 160) may also be stored on storage 190.” (See Applicant Specification para 56)
“At various points during the operation of transaction processing system 100, computing device 105 may communicate with one or more computing devices housing business applications 270, such as those provided and/or maintained by one or more individuals and/or entities, such as service provider 200 and/or application vendor 315 and/or account holder 300. Such computing devices may transmit and/or receive data to/from computing device 105, via server computing device 205, thereby initiating, maintaining, and/or enhancing the operation of the transaction processing system 100. Computing devices 205 may be in direct communication with computing device 105, indirect communication with computing device 105, and/or may be communicatively coordinated with computing device 105. While such computing devices may be practically any device capable of communication with computing device 105, certain computing devices (e.g., that of service provider 200) may be servers, though practically any computing device that is capable of transmitting and/or receiving data to/from computing device 105 could be similarly substituted.” (See Applicant Specification para 64)
“In still another illustrative example, computing device 105 may be implemented using a combination of processors found in computers and hardware units. Processor 110 may have a number of hardware units and a number of processors that are configured to execute software modules 130. In this example, some of the processors can be implemented in the number of hardware units, while other processors can be implemented in the number of processors. In another example, a bus system can be implemented and can be comprised of one or more buses, such as a system bus or an input/output bus. The bus system may be implemented using any suitable type of architecture that provides for a transfer of data between different components or devices attached to the bus system. Additionally, communications interface 150 may include one or more devices for transmitting and receiving data, such as a modem or a network adapter.” (See Applicant Specification para 69)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 1 and 6 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 2-5 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the respective independent Claims 1 and 6 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above.
Dependent Claim 2 provides further details reciting further comprising receiving an input of the unique identifier at a remote server, wherein the unique identifier corresponds to the transaction notification and actuates business applications to perform the transaction request. The additional elements of a remote server and business applications are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This step is receiving data and still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 3 provides further details reciting wherein the transaction request is submitted for information and for notifying the vendor and/or an account holder. This still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 4 provides further details further comprising eliciting the transaction request at an automated teller machine or other financial self-service terminal and processing the transaction request at the remote server. The additional elements of a remote server and an ATM or other financial self-service terminal are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This step is receiving data and still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 5 provides further details reciting further comprising: establishing a connection to a circuit board located within the financial self-service terminal; permitting a remote host to control operations of the financial self-service terminal; providing an application programming interface configured to be operated by the remote host; providing one or more proprietary permission keys known only to the remote host and configured to enable application functionality on the financial self-service terminal by the remote host; and disabling legacy software in the financial self-service terminal. The additional elements of a circuit board within the financial self-service terminal, an application programming interface, and legacy software are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This step is receiving data and still describes certain methods of organizing human activity.
No further additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Carrott (US PG Pub. 2017/0148019) (“Carrott”) – discloses a registered provider device that encrypts provider input related to a transaction between the provider device and one of many registered user devices to create an encrypted one-time-use provider code (the encryption is performed using an encryption key produced, in part, using a uniquely sequenced number generated by a sequencer maintained by the provider device). (See Carrott Abstract) Similarly, the user device encrypts user input to create an encrypted one-time-use user code using an encryption key produced, in part, using a uniquely sequenced number generated by a user sequencer maintained by the user device. (Id.)
Bergeon (US PG Pub. 2021/0272105) (“Bergeon”) – discloses technologies for managing payment authorization request messaging for payment transactions including a transaction management controller. (See Bergeon Abstract) The transaction management controller receives a transaction amount for a payment transaction from a business management engine and a payment transaction type from a point of interaction device. (Id.) The transaction management controller initializes a transaction processing module that corresponds to the received payment transaction type where the transaction processing module defines payment processing parameters for processing payment transactions of the payment transaction type. (Id.)
In one embodiment, a system for managing payment authorization request messaging for payment transactions includes a transaction management controller, a business management engine, a point of interaction (POI) device, and a payment network. (See Bergeon para 17) In some embodiments, the system includes a remote configuration device. (Id.) In operation, the transaction management controller receives a payment request from the business management engine in connection with a payment transaction, which includes a transaction amount and can be embodied as a HTTP message. (Id.) After receiving the payment request, the transaction management controller requests a payment transaction type from the POI device and in response, the transaction management controller dynamically loads or initializes a transaction processing module that corresponds to the received payment transaction type. (See Bergeon paras 17-18)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 5, 2025 have been fully considered as further detailed below.
As to the 101 Rejection:
Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s arguments as to the 101 rejection. (See Applicant Arguments dated 11/05/2025, pages 8-11) The rejection has been updated as seen in the rejection in chief. The amendments made have raised issues as to the scope of the claims and the scope of the specification as noted in the rejection in chief and do not clearly appear to reflect the technical advances argued for by Applicant. There is some confusion as to the scope of the claims and how Figures 3 and 6 relate to each other and the claimed elements. Examiner will revisit the 101 rejection once the scope of the claims and elements that are missing in order to reflect the technical advances Applicant argues are present.
As to the 103 Rejections:
There is currently no prior art rejection being applied. (Id. at pages 11-15)
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 AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 February 14, 2026