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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 2/5/2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A, recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative recite:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
receive a plurality of maximum amounts associated with a plurality of front-end devices;
receive a plurality of location indicators associated with the plurality of front-end devices;
receive, from a user device, a request that indicates an amount and a current location;
receive traffic information associated with a recent time;
wherein the traffic information comprises information associated with a route from a current location of the user device to a plurality of locations related to the plurality of front-end devices;
provide the amount and the current location to a machine learning model to receive an identifier associated with a selected front-end device, in the plurality of front-end devices, wherein the selected front-end device is determined based on using the machine learning model based on the plurality of maximum amounts, the plurality of location indicators, and the traffic information; and
output an indication of the selected front-end device to the user device, wherein the indication includes route information to the selected front-end device.
These limitations recite the concepts directed to collecting data, processing it using rules and presenting results. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Alternatively, the limitations also recite the abstract idea exception of “Mental processes”. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The mere use of a “machine learning models” for evaluating and selecting a device represents a mathematical concept that can be performed mentally or with pencil or paper.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), viewed individually or as a whole the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 recite additional elements such as processors, one or more memories, user device. Although reciting additional elements, these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 11 and 16 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 PEG).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-20 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1-20 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. The recited “machine learning model” is invoked in a result-oriented manner, without details of a specific architecture, training method or technological improvement to machine learning itself.
Furthermore, considering receiving, providing, outputting, etc. as additional, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 46 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
storing and retrieving information in memory
performing repetitive calculations
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(f), “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);”.
See MPEP 2106.05(d), “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));”
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-20 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1-20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anand (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0299214), in view of Burdick (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0140353).
Regarding claim 1, Anand teaches one or more memories; and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
receive a plurality of location indicators associated with the plurality of front-end devices; (a number of other shoppers available for fulfilling orders during the current time period near the second location), [7]
receive, from a user device, a request that indicates a current location, [48],
receive traffic information associated with a recent time, (predicts a travel time of the shopper from the current location to the second location, [7]);
wherein the traffic information comprises information associated with a route from a current location of the user device to a plurality of locations related to the plurality of front-end devices, (the system also displays a map showing the current location and the second location, [7]);
provide the amount and the current location to a machine learning model to receive an identifier associated with a selected front-end device, in the plurality of front-end devices, (the system uses the machine learning model to predict a second wait time… suggests the second location to the shopper [7]) wherein the selected front-end device is determined based on using the machine learning model based on the plurality of location indicators, and the traffic information, [5-8] and
output an indication of the selected front-end device to the user device, wherein the indication includes route information to the selected front-end device, (display a map showing the shopper's current location and the predicted wait time, [75]),
Anand substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, does not explicitly disclose receive a plurality of maximum amounts associated with a plurality of front-end devices; receive, from a user device, a request that indicates an amount; front-end devices, based on the plurality of maximum amounts associated with front end devices.
However, Burdick determines whether ATM 110A has sufficient cash on hand to carry out the withdrawal transaction in test step 226. If ATM 110A does not have sufficient cash on hand to carry out the withdrawal transaction, ATM 110A offers to reserve the requested amount of cash at a nearby ATM in step 228, [39]; Location 704 identifies the location of the ATM and can include any combination of a number of types of location data, [44], the bank server reports the reservation to the selected ATM, identifying the user for whom the cash is to be reserved and the amount of cash to reserve, [11-12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as disclosed by Anand to include limitations as taught by Burdick in order to reserve the cash at ATM for the user who can then travel a presumably short distance to complete the cash withdrawal that the first ATM could not complete, ( [12]).
Regarding claim 2-3, Anand teaches receive at least one location indicator, in the plurality of location indicators, from at least one front-end device in the plurality of front-end devices, receive at least one location indicator, in the plurality of location indicators, from a database associated with at least one front-end device in the plurality of front-end devices, see [5-7].
Regarding claim 4, Anand teaches determine a route between the current location and a location indicated by a location indicator, in the plurality of location indicators, associated with the selected front-end device; and output an indication of the route to the user device, [7].
Regarding claim 5, Anand teaches estimate a plurality of routes associated with the plurality of location indicators; transmit a request associated with the plurality of routes; and receive the traffic information in response to the request, ([7, 34, 54]).
Regarding claim 6, Anand teaches wherein the indication of the selected front-end device comprises a map showing the current location and a location indicator, in the plurality of location indicators, associated with the selected front-end device, [64]
Regarding claim 7-9, 15, 20, Anand does not explicitly teach the plurality of front-end devices comprises at least one automated teller machine; receive a plurality of respective supply levels associated with the plurality of front-end devices, wherein the selected front-end device is further based on the plurality of respective supply levels; receive at least one supply level, in the plurality of respective supply levels, from at least one front-end device in the plurality of front-end devices. However, Burdick teaches ATMs, [10-11, 34-39].
Regarding claim 10, Anand teaches receive a plurality of respective fee amounts associated with the plurality of front-end devices, wherein the selected front-end device is further based on the plurality of respective fee amounts, [charge payment, [40].
Claim 11, recites similar limitations as in claim 1. Anand teaches transmitting request from a user device to the routing system, receiving from the routing system an indication of relevant terminals and outputs indication, [5-8].
Regarding claim 12, Anand does not explicitly, however, Burdick teaches transmitting, to the routing system and from the user device, a set of credentials associated with the user of the user device, wherein the request is transmitted based on the set of credentials being validated, (PIN, [27-29]).
Regarding claim 13, Anand teaches transmitting a selection of a network from a plurality of possible networks, [28].
Regarding claim 14, Anand teaches the representation comprises a map showing the current location and at least one indicator associated with the at least one relevant front-end device, [7].
Claim 16, recites instructions for performing the same process as described in claim 1. Anand teaches the features as shown above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Anand teaches transmit a range associated with the request, wherein the at least one relevant front-end device is further based on the range, [5-7].
Regarding claim 18, Anand does not explicitly, however, Burdick teaches transmit a selection of a financial institution from a plurality of possible institutions, [26].
Regarding claim 19, Anand teaches the representation comprises a map showing the current location and at least one indicator associated with the at least one relevant front-end device, [7].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims remain directed to abstract idea of collecting and analyzing information to select front-end device. The claims recite receiving transaction, location, traffic information providing information to a machine learning model and outputting selected device and route information. These are data analysis and decision-making processes that can be performed mentally or with generic computer implementation. Reciting a “machine learning model” does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Applicant argues “the claim requires the use of machine learning to process specific types of device data…to optimize device selection” attempts to frame a specific combination of inputs, real-time processing but it is actually equivalent to operational business benefit. Invoking AI to perform abstract analysis faster does not make the claim technological.
Applicant’s improvement relates to business and logistical efficiency not improvement to computer functionality. The claims use generic computer components and machine learning to evaluate information and select a device. Receiving traffic information, selecting a device based on criteria and outputting route information merely automate a conventional process using generic technology. Outputting route information is insignificant extra solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights