DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Applicant filed an amendment on 09/30/2025 amending the claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17,18 and 20 with remarks/arguments. After careful consideration of applicant’s amendments and arguments, new ground of rejections of claims necessitated by applicant amendment has been established in the instant application as set forth in detail below. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 and 20 of co-pending Application No. 18/430,440 Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because '440 application in claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 and 20 1-20 teaches the elements in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12 , 14 and 15 of the instant application.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not yet been patented.
As per independent claims 1 and 11 of instant application, claims 1 and 11 of co-pending application teaches all element of instant claims.
As per dependent claims, claims 2, 10, 12 and 20 pf co-pending application ‘440 teaches elements of dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 14 and 15 of the instant application.
The claims in the instant application do not recite limitations of dependent claims 3-9 and 13-19. The limitation of “analyzing language in constraint of the request by the language model and determining ATM satisfies the constraint based on the analysis” in the independent claim of the co-pending application is not recited in the instant application.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
In the instant case, Claims 1-20 are directed to system and method of receiving a selection from a list of ATM that satisfies the at least one constraint of the request and communicating the selection from the list to initialize the transaction. The claims 1-20 are analyzed to see if claims are statutory category of invention, recites judicial exception and the claims are further analyzed to see if the claims are integrated into practical application if the judicial exception is recited and the claims provides an inventive as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility as set forth below:
Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 106.03.
Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising at least a non-transitory computer readable medium and a processor, for currency amount determination. The claimed system is therefore directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (a combination of device) (Step 1: YES).
Claim 11 is directed to a process; i.e., a series of a computer-implemented method steps or acts, currency amount determination which is a statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. There are no nature- based product limitations in this claim, and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 11 are similar and they are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recite plurality of steps of “receiving a request comprising at least one constraint for a transaction, communicating the request, determining at least one automated teller machine (ATM) that satisfies the at least one constraint of the request and providing the at least one ATM that satisfies the at least one constraint of the request.”
The limitations of receiving a request, communicating the request, determining at least one automated teller machine (ATM) that satisfies the at least one constraint of the request and providing the at least one ATM that satisfies the at least one constraint of the request, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind similar to Mortgage Grader, Inc., v. First Choice Loan Servcs with computer implemented method and system for anonymous shopping loan packages but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and thus fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. A recitation of a processor in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the above limitations of recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (YES).
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract idea as described in Prong 1, the claim recites the additional elements of the computing device performing “receiving a selection from a list of ATM that satisfies the at least one constraint of the request and communicating the selection from the list initiating the transaction.”
An evaluation of whether limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation (a) is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, this additional element represents mere data gathering of satisfying constraints and communicating selection based satisfying the constraint. The processor is recited without any details that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computer does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive concept? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, there are two additional elements.
The first is the computing device perform all the limitations recited. As explained previously, the processor would best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The second additional element is limitation of “receiving a selection from a list of ATM that satisfies the at least one constraint of the request and communicating the selection from the list initiating the transaction, which as explained previously is extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Under the 2019 PEG, however, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. 2019 PEG Section III(B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the recitation being is mere data gathering of satisfying constraints and communicating selection based satisfying the constraint, that is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation (a) does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
The claims as presented is a formula in isolation and it is not analogous to claims found in eligible Diamond v. Diehr which imposed meaningful limits that apply the formula to improve an existing technological process of transforming raw and uncured rubber to cured molded rubber. The computer in the Diehr precisely determines when to open the press and eject the cured rubber perfectly curing the rubber by repeatedly calculating the rubber cure time from this temperature measurement and comparing the computed cure time to the actual elapsed time. The steps of continuously measuring temperature and repeatedly recalculating the rubber cure time and comparing it to the elapsed time were new steps that were found to be worthy of patent protection in the Diehr, which is not comparable to “determining at least one automated teller machine (ATM) that satisfies the at least one constraint of the request, receiving a selection from a list of ATM that satisfies the at least one constraint of the request and communicating the selection from the list initiating the transaction” as recited in the instant claims. Claims as recited do not provide any particular asserted inventive technology for performing those functions and therefore the claims are held patent ineligible (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims is not patent eligible. (NO).
Dependent Claims:
Examiner further reviewed the dependent 2-10 and 12-20 that could be added to the independent claims to make patent eligible. The dependent claims as recited pertains to additional steps which further describes constraints, communicating to interbank network, constraint requirement satisfaction, availability of cash denomination, initializing transaction, ATM withdrawal breakdown, time limit of ATM withdrawal and identifying bank in interbank network” which appear to be a mental process and/or mathematical relationship/formula , using a generic computer component that been found to be an abstract idea as described above. These dependent claims do not provide additional elements significantly more than the purported abstract idea that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims as recited would not make the independent claim significantly more by incorporating them into the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible (NO) as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2019 Update of Subject Matter Eligibility.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waqas et al., Association of Computing Machinery, April 2019 (reference U in attached PTO-892) in view of Rodrigues et al., US. Pub No. 2018/0341934 (reference A in attached PTO-892).
As per claim 1, Waqas et al. teach system for currency amount determination, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see abstract, Fig. 6), cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a request comprising at least one constraint for a transaction (see page 70; column 1, 1st paragraph; Fig. 7: Select Location, Bank, or ATM Status; User mobile requests location, Bank and status of desired ATM);
communicating the request to at least one interbank network (see Fig. 6, ATM Tracker: Displaying Status of ATM: page 6, column 2, last paragraph; where user communicate using Wi-Fi module to Server, Database and Host Processor about status of ATM in an Inter-Bank Network);
determining at least one automated teller machine (ATM) that satisfies the at least one constraint of the request (see page 70, column 1, 2nd paragraph: FEATURES OF ATM TRACKER; where system provide information about ATM available in 3 km radius including cash availability, technical issues and faults and direction toward selected ATM machine);
providing, to the user device, the at least one ATM that satisfies the at least one constraint of the request (see Fig. 8 (a) Home Page -> Select Location; Fig. 8 (b) List of ATMs, page 70, column 2, column 2, 2nd paragraph; where constraint of location provide list of ATMs available in the Bank in the area);
receiving, from the user device, a selection from a list of the at least one ATM that satisfies the at least one constraint of the request (see 70, Fig 9 (a) and (b): Status of Selected ATMs and Map Interface: Column 2, last paragraph); and
communicating, with the at least one interbank network, the selection from the list of at least one result to initialize the transaction (page 70, Fig. 9 (a0 and (b) Status of Selected ATM and Map Interface: column 2, last paragraph; where user selects one ATM out of many ATSMs in the Inter-Bank Network and direction to the selected bank is displayed in the google map to carry out transaction on reaching there).
Waqas et al. do not teach wherein the at least one constraint includes a breakdown of currency by denomination; wherein communicating the selection includes initiating the transaction.
Rodrigues et al. teach wherein the at least one constraint includes a breakdown of currency by denomination; wherein communicating the selection includes initiating the transaction (see abstract; Fig. 6, Step 614: paragraph [0010, 0034-0038]; where system determine one or more ATM of plurality of ATMs that have breakdown of currency denomination as required by the user (see paragraph [103]; where customer initiate process withdrawal by traveling to ATM location have confirmed to have breakdown of denomination of currency for withdrawal).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow wherein the at least one constraint includes a breakdown of currency by denomination; wherein communicating the selection includes initiating the transaction to Waqas et al. because Rodrigues et al. teach including above features would enable user to remotely determine ATM availability with desirable withdrawal amount with desired currency denomination prior to travelling to the location of the ATM (Rodrigues et al., abstract, paragraph [0038]).
As per claim 2, Waqas et al. teach the claim as described above. Waqas et al. further teach the system, wherein the at least one constraint of the request comprises at least one of:
a bank, the bank associated with a user; a location, the location associated with the user; a total amount of currency (see Page 70. Fig. 7: Location, Bank and ATM Status: Column 1, 1st and 2nd paragraph).
As per claim 3, Waqas et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Waqas et al. further teach the system, wherein teach communicating with the at least one interbank network comprises:
commanding the at least one interbank network to query associated ATMs for data;
receiving the data; and storing the data in a data structure (see Fig. 6, Displaying Status of ATMs, Inter-Bank Network: page 70, Column 1, 2nd paragraph; where user device receives data related to ARM statuses, cash availability, technical issues and faults and pointer map to a location of the selected ATM which is stored in the user device).
As per claim 4, Waqas et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Waqas et al. further teach the system, wherein communicating with the at least one interbank network further comprises:
redirecting the request to at least one interbank network associated with a bank associated with the user (see Fig. 6, Inter-Bank Network, ATM Tracker/User Device, Server, Internet, ATM: page 69, column 2, 1st – 3rd paragraph; where ATM Status query directed to Server is redirected to Inter-Bank Network and ATM Status is sent to Host Processor and sent back to ATM Tracker/User device);
commanding the at least one interbank network associated with the bank to query associated ATMs for data; receiving the data; and storing the data in a data structure (see Fig. 8 (a) and (b) -> Fig. 9 (a) and (b): page 70, last two paragraph; where user request location ATM available with a Ban in the area and Inter-Bank Network return the available ATMs and address of a selected ATM in the google map).
As per claim 6, Waqas et al. teach the claim 5 as described above. Waqas et al. further teach the system, wherein the indication is selected from the group consisting of:
requested denomination available with the ATM; requested denomination is not available with the ATM but cash withdrawals possible with other denominations; and ATM out of cash or out of service momentarily (see Fig. 6: Displaying Status of ATMs; page 60, column 2, 1th to 3rd paragraph; where status of every status of ATMs is available such as “out of cash”, “link down”, “out of order” etc. which is further displayed by “on” or “off” indicating cash available or not).
As per claim 11, Waqas et al. teach a method for currency amount determination, comprising steps as described in the claim 1 above.
As per claims 12-14 and 16, Waqas et al. teach claim 11. Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under same rational as the claims 2-4 and 6 as described above.
Claims 5, 7-9, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waqas et al., Association of Computing Machinery, April 2019 (reference U in attached PTO-892) in view of Rodrigues et al., US. Pub No. 2018/0341934 (reference A in attached PTO-892) in view of Burdick, U.S. Pub No. 2017/0140353 (reference B in attached PTO-892).
As per claim 5, Waqas et al. teach the claim 1 as described above. Waqas et al. further teach the system, wherein determining the at least one ATM that satisfies the request comprises:
the score calculated based how closely the ATM matches the at least one constraint of the request (see page 70, column 1, 2nd paragraph; where location of ATMs as close as pf 3Km of radium is displayed in response user request); creating the list, each element of the list comprising: a unique alphanumeric identification associated with each ATM; and an indication associated with the ATM (see Fig. 9 (a): MCB Bank: ATMs and their location: page 70, Last Paragraph; where all ATM and their identification of MCB Bank is displayed to the user device) )
Waqas et al. do not teach calculating a score for each ATM based on the data stored in the data structure and ranking the ATMs by the score.
Burdick teaches calculating a score for each ATM based on the data stored in the data structure and ranking the ATMs by the score (see paragraph [0044, 0047 and 0048]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow calculating a score for each ATM based on the data stored in the data structure and ranking the ATMs by the score to Waqas et al. because Burdick teaches including above features would enable user to select relevant bank providing increase availability of cash while avoiding overstocking the ATM wish unnecessary cash (Burdick, abstract, paragraph [0007-0010]).
As per claim 7, Waqas et al. teach the claim 1 as described above.
Waqas et al. do not teach initializing the transaction comprises: instructing the at least one interbank network to modify data stored in the selected ATM by subtracting from the selection’s data value of available currency the breakdown of (the total amount of) currency by denomination; and instructing the at least one interbank network to create and store in a memory location a new data value in the selection, the new data value comprising identifying information associated with the user and the breakdown of (the total amount of) currency by denomination.
Burdick teaches initializing the transaction comprises: instructing the at least one interbank network to modify data stored in the selected ATM by subtracting from the selection’s data value of available currency the breakdown of the total amount of currency; and instructing the at least one interbank network to create and store in a memory location a new data value in the selection, the new data value comprising identifying information associated with the user and the breakdown of the total amount of currency (see Fig. 3, Steps 302 -> 306: Deduct dispensed Amount from the User’s Account (306): paragraph 0040]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow above listed features to Waqas et al. because Burdick teaches including above features would enable to ensure customers have enough cash at selected atm location (Burdick, abstract, paragraph [0007]).
Rodrigues checks availability of breakdown of currency denomination in plurality of ATMs in real-time based on request by customer and provide list of ATMs that have available amount of currency by denomination for withdrawal (see Fig. 6A to 6D; Steps 604, 614, 620, 623 and 625: paragraph [0099-0104]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow above features to Waqas et al. because Rodrigues et al. teach including above features would enable user to remotely determine ATM availability of desirable withdrawal amount with desired currency denomination prior to travelling to the location of the ATM (Rodrigues et al., abstract, paragraph [0038]).
As per claim 8, Waqas et al. teach the claim 7 as described above.
Waqas et al. do not teach the new data value configures the ATM that the breakdown (of the total amount) of currency by denomination may only be withdrawn by the user.
Burdick teaches the new data value configures the ATM that the breakdown of the total amount of currency may only be withdrawn by the user (see Fig. 3, Steps 302 -> 306: Deduct dispensed Amount from the User’s Account (306): paragraph 0040]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the new data value configures the ATM that the breakdown of the total amount of currency may only be withdrawn by the user to Waqas et al. because Burdick teaches including above features would enable to ensure customers have enough cash at selected atm location (Burdick, abstract, paragraph [0007]).
Rodrigues et al. teach the new data value configures the ATM that the breakdown (of the total amount) of currency by denomination may only be withdrawn by the user (see Fig. 6A to 6D; Steps 604, 614, 620, 623 and 625: paragraph [0099-0104]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow above features to Waqas et al. because Rodrigues et al. teach including above features would enable user to remotely determine ATM availability of desirable withdrawal amount with desired currency denomination prior to travelling to the location of the ATM (Rodrigues et al., abstract, paragraph [0038]).
As per claim 9, Waqas et al. teach the claim 7 as described above.
Waqas et al. do not teach the new data value further comprises a time, the time after which the new data value is added back to the selection’s data value of available currency and deleted from the memory location.
Burdick teaches the new data value further comprises a time, the time after which the new data value is added back to the selection’s data value of available currency and deleted from the memory location (see Fig. 8, Reservation Record (800): Amount (808) and Expiration (810): Paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the new data value further comprises a time, the time after which the new data value is added back to the selection’s data value of available currency and deleted from the memory location to Waqas et al. because Burdick teaches including above features would enable to ensure customers withdraw cash before time of expiration of reservation of cash at selected ATM location (Burdick, abstract, paragraph [0053]).
12. As per claims 15 and 17-19, Waqas et al. teach claim 11. Claims 15 and 17-19 are rejected under same rational as the claims 5 and 7-9 as described above.
Claim 10 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waqas et al., Association of Computing Machinery, April 2019 (reference U in attached PTO-892) in view of Rodrigues et al., US. Pub No. 2018/0341934 (reference A in attached PTO-892) in view of Burdick, U.S. Pub No. 2017/0140353 (reference B in attached PTO-892) further in view of Panthaki et al., U.S. Pub No. 2010/0030687 (reference C in attached PTO-892).
As per claims 10 and 20, Waqas et al. teach the claim 5 as described above. Waqas et al further teach Inter-Bank Network connecting ATM and ATM Tracker providing ATM Status (see Fig. 6, page 69).
Waqas et al. do not teach communicating with the at least one interbank network further comprises configuring a machine learning model to identify the interbank network associated with a bank associated with the user.
Panthaki et al. and Rodrigues et al. teach communicating with the at least one interbank network further comprises configuring a machine learning model to identify the interbank network associated with the bank (see Panthaki et al.: abstract, Fig. 1, paragraph [0027, 0043 and 0047]; Rodrigues et al.: paragraph [0061]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow communicating with the at least one interbank network further comprises configuring a machine learning model to identify the interbank network associated with the bank to Waqas et al. because Panthaki et al. teach including above features would enable to ensure real-time transaction from different financial institution by providing best network routing schemes and Rodrigues et al. locate ATMs within threshold of location of the client device (Burdick, abstract, paragraph [0047]; Rodrigues et al.: paragraph [0061]).
Response to Arguments
New ground of rejections of claims necessitated by applicant amendment has been established after careful consideration of applicant’s amendments and arguments in the instant application as set forth in detail below. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
With respect to applicant rejection under U.S.C. 101, Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive. For subject matter eligibility, the examiner’s met by burden clearly articulating the reasons why the claimed invention is not eligible by providing a reasoned rationale with examples from Interim Eligibility Guidelines identifying the judicial exception recited in the claim and why it is considered an exception, and examined the additional elements in the independent and dependent claims and explained why they do not amount to significantly more than the exception. The analysis as described in Steps 2A and 2B of Eligibility Guidance above is sufficient as it incorporates “significantly more” consideration in step 2B even if claim includes an abstract idea.
The claims as recited is simply a process in which computer are invoked merely as a tool for implementing abstract ideas rather than specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities such as the self-reliant table for computer database in the Enfish or remote filtering tool at a specific location customizable filtering features specific to each end user" in BASCOM or "effect an improvement in technology or technical field" in McRO. The automating conventional activities using generic technology does not amount to an inventive concept (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358) as these simply describes "automation of a mathematical formula/relationship through use of generic-computer computer function (see OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 788, F.3d at 1363).
It is to be noted that the court rejected abstract idea of "filtering content in the Internet" in BASCOM, which is similar to “filtering ATMs that satisfies a constraint that includes a breakdown of currency by denomination” in the claims in the instant application. It is only the significantly more steps that enabled of "installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end” as described in step two analysis of Mayo of the court decision made the claims in BASCOM patent eligible. An inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot be simply an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosures. The following are pertinent to current invention, though not relied upon:
Chavan et al. (ISSS, 2021) teach ATM Cash Demand Prediction.
Laracey (U.S. Pub No. 2016/0180307) teaches mobile phone ATM processing conducting ATM transactions.
Mon et al. (U. S. Pub No. 2011/0184865) teach interacting with user at ATM based on user preferences.
Phillips et al. ( U.S. Pub No. 2021/0150497) teach cardless ATM connectivity for denomination selection.
Thomas et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,308,481) teach cardless ATM authentication.
Block et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,261,976) teach ATM transaction authorization based on user location verification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1374. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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
Respectfully submitted,
/BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 December 27, 2025