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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendment filed on 02/13/2026.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-40 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 34 is 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 34 recites “enable or restrict transactions at the first service device based on accessibility [emphasis added].” The broader recitation of “accessibility” in claim 34 after the more specific recitation of “determine whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location, wherein the first service device is accessible only when the second location is accessible” in claim 21 renders the meaning of “accessibility” in claim 34 indefinite. As such, the scope of claim 34 is unclear.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, as determined by the Subject Matter Eligibility Test
detailed below.
Step 1
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 21, 36, and 39 are directed towards a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively. Therefore, each of the independent claims 21, 36, and 39, and the corresponding dependent claims 2-35, 37-38, and 40 are directed to a statutory category of invention under step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step
2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Regarding Prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those shown in bold below.
A control system for location-based and function-based location filtering, the control system comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
access, from a plurality of decentralized databases, location information and operational status information associated with a plurality of service devices;
aggregate the location information and operational status information;
identify, based on a geographic location associated with a user device and based on a function, one or more candidate service devices at which the function is performable;
determine, for each of the one or more candidate service devices, whether the function is currently performable based on the operational status information;
identify that a first service device of the one or more candidate service devices is located in a second location that provides access to the first service device;
determine whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location, wherein the first service device is accessible only when the second location is accessible; and
output, for use in a user interface or for controlling access to the first service device, data indicating the first service device based on the function being currently performable and the first service device being accessible.
These limitations, as drafted, describe a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recites mental processes. For example, “identify that a first service device of the one or more candidate service devices is located in a second location that provides access to the first service device; determine whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location, wherein the first service device is accessible only when the second location is accessible” may be interpreted as a mental determination made according to observable data, such as a person seeing a sign outside a grocery store that says “ATM inside” and mentally determining that this location may offer access to an ATM that may perform the desired financial service only if the surrounding grocery store is open. Additionally, “identify, based on a geographic location associated with a user device and based on a function, one or more candidate service devices at which the function is performable” may be interpreted as, upon hearing about several nearby ATMs that offer various services, mentally narrowing the list to those with the desired financial service and within a specific distance of the user’s location. Additionally, “determine, for each of the one or more candidate service devices, whether the function is currently performable based on the operational status information;” may be interpreted as, given the information regarding the operating hours and functionalities of a specific ATM unit, determining whether or not it meets the criteria regarding function performance. Finally, “aggregate the location information and operational status information” may be interpreted as mentally collocating or even writing down a list of locations and status details regarding several ATMs. Thus, the claim recites at least an abstract idea.
Claims -36 and 39 recite abstract limitations analogous to those identified above with respect to claim 21, and therefore recite abstract ideas per the same analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 2
If the claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A, Prong 2. In Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Regarding Prong 2, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Claim 1 recites additional elements including those underlined below.
A control system for location-based and function-based location filtering, the control system comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
access, from a plurality of decentralized databases, location information and operational status information associated with a plurality of service devices;
aggregate the location information and operational status information;
identify, based on a geographic location associated with a user device and based on a function, one or more candidate service devices at which the function is performable;
determine, for each of the one or more candidate service devices, whether the function is currently performable based on the operational status information;
identify that a first service device of the one or more candidate service devices is located in a second location that provides access to the first service device;
determine whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location, wherein the first service device is accessible only when the second location is accessible; and
output, for use in a user interface or for controlling access to the first service device, data indicating the first service device based on the function being currently performable and the first service device being accessible.
The recitation of “access, from a plurality of decentralized databases, location information and operational status information associated with a plurality of service devices” amounts to mere data receiving, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the recitation of “output, for use in a user interface or for controlling access to the first service device, data indicating the first service device based on the function being currently performable and the first service device being accessible” amounts to sending or displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the recitation of “one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories” amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong 2, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether it provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of “one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories” amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, “access, from a plurality of decentralized databases, location information and operational status information associated with a plurality of service devices” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As discussed above, “output, for use in a user interface or for controlling access to the first service device, data indicating the first service device based on the function being currently performable and the first service device being accessible” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data (i.e., displaying a map indicating locations) is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim 39 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a control system” in the preamble, which amounts to merely generic components which allow the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). The examiner submits that these elements are mere computers or other machinery used as a tool to perform the existing process.
Dependent claims 22-35, 37-38, 40 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the various limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., further characterizing the collecting of data and outputting of data). Therefore, dependent claims 22-35, 37-38, 40 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 21, 36, and 39.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 15-32, 34-37, 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130178233 A1 McCoy; David C. et al. (hereinafter McCoy), in view of US 20200118204 A1 CHAKRABORTY; Sandipan et al. (hereinafter Chakraborty), further in view of US 20200167744 A1 Benkreira; Abdelkader M'Hamed et al. (hereinafter Benkreira).
Regarding claim 21, McCoy discloses: A control system for location-based and function-based location filtering (see McCoy at least [abstract] systems, methods, apparatuses, and software are described in which a mobile device may receive information about a subset of ATMs), the control system comprising:
one or more memories (see McCoy at least [0028] computer-readable medium 202 include, but are not limited to, one or more memories); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (see McCoy at least [0003] an apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions), configured to:
access, from a (see McCoy at least [0024] The one or more computer-readable media of library 104 may store information about ATMs 105 and/or retail banking centers 106, and the information may be organized and accessible such as using a database software application… each ATM of ATMs 105 (e.g., ATM 1, ATM 2, ATM 3, etc.) may be associated with a location and one or more non-location properties of the respective ATM. The non-location properties may include, for instance, whether the ATM or retail banking center is currently operational (available for conducting financial transactions));
identify, based on a geographic location associated with a user device and based on a function, one or more candidate service devices at which the function is performable (see McCoy at least [0024] The non-location properties may include… functional capabilities of the ATM (e.g., talking ATM, braille ATM, video assistance (VTM) capable, having an optical deposited check reader, etc.)… server 103 may use the information stored by library 104 to determine a subset of the ATMs and/or retail banking centers (and their corresponding locations and/or properties) to be sent to mobile device 101);
determine, for each of the one or more candidate service devices, whether the function is currently performable based on the operational status information (see McCoy at least [claim 18] determining the subset based on which of the ATMs, the VTMs, or the retail banking centers are currently available for conducting financial transactions);
identify that a first service device of the one or more candidate service devices is located in a second location that provides access to the first service device (see McCoy at least [0024] The non-location properties may include… whether the ATM is within a building or outside a building); and
output, for use in a user interface or for controlling access to the first service device, data indicating the first service device based on the function being currently performable and the first service device being accessible (see McCoy at least [0051] the user may be given the opportunity to view the ATM or other point of interest associated with that geo-fence 303 on a map displayed on the display of mobile device 101).
McCoy does not teach: a plurality of decentralized databases; aggregate the location information and operational status information; and determine whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location, wherein the first service device is accessible only when the second location is accessible.
However, Chakraborty teaches: a plurality of decentralized databases (see Chakraborty at least [0027] the mobile device of the first party runs an application being in contact with a server or a decentralized block chain based system, and a mobile device of the second party runs an application being in contact with the same server or block chain based system);
aggregate the location information and operational status information (see Chakraborty at least [0113] In a simple case, the known information on time and location is collected).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending system disclosed by McCoy to include the decentralized architecture of Chakraborty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a method incorporates preferences and availability information from myriad sources, allowing for personalized filtering and recommendations, as suggested by Chakraborty (see Chakraborty at least [0036] Preferably, a collaborative filtering algorithm is applied to generate a recommendation based on the user affinity and the recorded properties. The efficiency of such approaches is known from recommender systems).
McCoy and Chakraborty do not teach: determine whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location, wherein the first service device is accessible only when the second location is accessible.
However, Benkreira teaches: determine whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location, wherein the first service device is accessible only when the second location is accessible (see Benkreira at least [0048] For example, if an ATM 106 is within a facility that closes at 10 pm, and the customer is performing this operation at 10:15 pm, ATM handler 118 may omit all ATMs that are inaccessible after 10 pm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending system disclosed by McCoy and Chakraborty to include the consideration of device availability relative to the facility within which it is nested of Benkreira. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because operating hours of relevant institutions can be accessed through databases and is crucial for providing feasible device suggestions for a user, as suggested by Benkreira (see Benkreira at least [0048] ATM handler 118 may communicate with database 108 to access ATM information 128… ATM information 128 may include available house [sic] for each ATM 106).
Regarding claim 22, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21, wherein the plurality of decentralized databases are maintained by different entities (see Chakraborty at least [0059] A major aspect of PSD II is the right for licensed third-party payment services providers (TPPs) to access payment accounts of customers having given explicit consent to the access. The bank maintaining the customer's payment account must grant TPPs access to account information of specific customers)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending system disclosed by McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira to include the decentralized information management of Chakraborty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such distributed maintenance of data allows for quick usage of the aggregated information, as suggested by Chakraborty (see Chakraborty at least [0059] This will substantially facilitate the implementation of the inventive system and allow for a quick and wide distribution of the system).
Regarding claim 23¸ McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21, wherein the plurality of decentralized databases store data in different formats (see Chakraborty at least [0132] The database is accessed inter alia by conversion modules 113, 114 which allow for converting between fiat money stored on a bank account and electronic currency).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending system disclosed by McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira to include the decentralized information management with different formats of stored data of Chakraborty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such distributed maintenance of different data allows for quick usage of the aggregated information, as suggested by Chakraborty (see Chakraborty at least [0059] This will substantially facilitate the implementation of the inventive system and allow for a quick and wide distribution of the system).
Regarding claim 25, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21, wherein the operational status information indicates whether a respective service device is currently capable of performing the function (see McCoy at least [0024] The non-location properties may include, for instance, whether the ATM or retail banking center is currently operational (available for conducting financial transactions)).
Regarding claim 26, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21, wherein identifying the one or more candidate service devices comprises filtering the plurality of service devices based on proximity to the geographic location associated with the user device (see McCoy at least [0044] Mobile device 101 may then be able to use the downloaded subset to locally determine which ATMs and/or retail banking centers, if any, are proximate to mobile device 101).
Regarding claim 27, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21, wherein identifying the one or more candidate service devices comprises filtering the plurality of service devices by one or more location types associated with supporting the function (see McCoy at least [0043] server 103 may receive indications from mobile device 101 of user preferences, such as that the user is only interested in those ATMs having braille service. In that case, server 103 may only include those ATMs having braille service in the subset).
Regarding claim 28, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21, wherein the function comprises a transaction or service performable at a physical device (see McCoy at least [0024] The non-location properties may include… functional capabilities of the ATM (e.g., talking ATM, braille ATM, video assistance (VTM) capable, having an optical deposited check reader, etc.)).
Regarding claim 29, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21, wherein the second location comprises a physical location that provides physical access to the first service device (see Benkreira at least [0048] For example, if an ATM 106 is within a facility that closes at 10 pm, and the customer is performing this operation at 10:15 pm, ATM handler 118 may omit all ATMs that are inaccessible after 10 pm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending system disclosed by McCoy and Chakraborty to include the consideration of device availability relative to the facility within which it is nested of Benkreira. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because operating hours of relevant institutions can be accessed through databases and is crucial for providing feasible device suggestions for a user, as suggested by Benkreira (see Benkreira at least [0048] ATM handler 118 may communicate with database 108 to access ATM information 128… ATM information 128 may include available house [sic] for each ATM 106).
Regarding claim 30, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21, wherein the output comprises data for display via a map element of a user interface (see McCoy at least [0051] the user may be given the opportunity to view the ATM or other point of interest associated with that geo-fence 303 on a map displayed on the display of mobile device 101).
Regarding claim 31, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21, wherein the output excludes any service device determined to be inaccessible for performing the function (see McCoy at least [0043] Moreover, the subset may further exclude certain ones of the ATMs and/or retail banking centers that, while located within the bounds of search boundary 901, do not meet certain criteria. For example, if server 103 knows the current time of day, then server 103 may exclude those ATMs and/or retail banking centers that are not currently open for business).
Regarding claim 32, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to rank or order accessible service devices based on at least one of: operational status, accessibility via the second location, or historical usage frequency (see Chakraborty at least [0120] Further proposals for cash withdrawal may be based on the user's transaction history, in particular with a financial service provider (such as the user's bank)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending system disclosed by McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira to include the historical user tendencies in device recommendation of Chakraborty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this lets the system suggest locations that likely align with a specific user’s inferred preferences, as suggested by Chakraborty (see Chakraborty at least [0120] For this purpose, the provider of the inventive method accesses the transactions relating to a certain time interval before the current day (such as 3 years) and applies machine learning and data analytics in order to predict the user's affinities and preferences as a customer, in particular with respect to shops or service providers).
Regarding claim 34, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21, wherein the output is provided to a transaction system to enable or restrict transactions at the first service device based on accessibility (see Chakraborty at least [0095] In principle this provides several occasions for a transaction between the first party and one of the candidates, indicated by circles and ovals 70.1 . . . 6 and [0106] Accordingly, if the virtual ATM app is invoked by the first person at time t0 no immediate possibility for a withdrawal will be found as all available candidates are too far away).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending system disclosed by McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira to include the conditional enabling of certain time-location device combinations of Chakraborty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because different transaction points may not be suitable due to location differences or other issues, and as such should not be allowed to transact, as suggested by Chakraborty (see Chakraborty at least [0111] If the app is started once more at a later point in time, further occasions may be detected, in particular due to increased information on the activities of the first party and the candidates).
Regarding claim 35, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21, wherein determining accessibility comprises determining that the first service device is inaccessible when the second location is closed or otherwise unavailable (see Benkreira at least [0048] For example, if an ATM 106 is within a facility that closes at 10 pm, and the customer is performing this operation at 10:15 pm, ATM handler 118 may omit all ATMs that are inaccessible after 10 pm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending system disclosed by McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira to include the consideration of device availability relative to the facility within which it is nested of Benkreira. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because operating hours of relevant institutions can be accessed through databases and is crucial for providing feasible device suggestions for a user, as suggested by Benkreira (see Benkreira at least [0048] ATM handler 118 may communicate with database 108 to access ATM information 128… ATM information 128 may include available house [sic] for each ATM 106).
Regarding claim 36, McCoy discloses: A method of location-based and function-based location filtering (see McCoy at least [abstract] Examples of systems, methods, apparatuses, and software are described in which a mobile device may receive information about a subset of ATMs), comprising:
accessing, by a control system comprising one or more processors and one or more memories, from a plurality of decentralized databases, location information and operational status information associated with a plurality of service devices (see McCoy at least (see McCoy at least [0028] computer-readable medium 202 include, but are not limited to, one or more memories and [0003] an apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions and [0024] The one or more computer-readable media of library 104 may store information about ATMs 105 and/or retail banking centers 106, and the information may be organized and accessible such as using a database software application… each ATM of ATMs 105 (e.g., ATM 1, ATM 2, ATM 3, etc.) may be associated with a location and one or more non-location properties of the respective ATM. The non-location properties may include, for instance, whether the ATM or retail banking center is currently operational (available for conducting financial transactions));
identifying, based on a geographic location associated with a user device and based on a function, one or more candidate service devices at which the function is performable (see McCoy at least [0024] The non-location properties may include… functional capabilities of the ATM (e.g., talking ATM, braille ATM, video assistance (VTM) capable, having an optical deposited check reader, etc.)… server 103 may use the information stored by library 104 to determine a subset of the ATMs and/or retail banking centers (and their corresponding locations and/or properties) to be sent to mobile device 101);
determining, for each of the one or more candidate service devices, whether the function is currently performable based on the operational status information (see McCoy at least [claim 18] determining the subset based on which of the ATMs, the VTMs, or the retail banking centers are currently available for conducting financial transactions);
identifying that a first service device is located in a second location that provides access to the first service device (see McCoy at least [0024] The non-location properties may include… whether the ATM is within a building or outside a building); and
outputting data indicating the first service device for use in a user interface or for controlling access to the first service device based on the function being currently performable and the first service device being accessible (see McCoy at least [0051] the user may be given the opportunity to view the ATM or other point of interest associated with that geo-fence 303 on a map displayed on the display of mobile device 101).
McCoy does not teach: aggregating the location information and operational status information; determining whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location.
However, Chakraborty teaches: a plurality of decentralized databases (see Chakraborty at least [0027] the mobile device of the first party runs an application being in contact with a server or a decentralized block chain based system, and a mobile device of the second party runs an application being in contact with the same server or block chain based system);
aggregate the location information and operational status information (see Chakraborty at least [0113] In a simple case, the known information on time and location is collected).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending method disclosed by McCoy to include the decentralized architecture of Chakraborty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a method incorporates preferences and availability information from myriad sources, allowing for personalized filtering and recommendations, as suggested by Chakraborty (see Chakraborty at least [0036] Preferably, a collaborative filtering algorithm is applied to generate a recommendation based on the user affinity and the recorded properties. The efficiency of such approaches is known from recommender systems).
McCoy and Chakraborty do not teach: determining whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location.
However, Benkreira teaches: determining whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location (see Benkreira at least [0048] For example, if an ATM 106 is within a facility that closes at 10 pm, and the customer is performing this operation at 10:15 pm, ATM handler 118 may omit all ATMs that are inaccessible after 10 pm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending method disclosed by McCoy and Chakraborty to include the consideration of device availability relative to the facility within which it is nested of Benkreira. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because operating hours of relevant institutions can be accessed through databases and is crucial for providing feasible device suggestions for a user, as suggested by Benkreira (see Benkreira at least [0048] ATM handler 118 may communicate with database 108 to access ATM information 128… ATM information 128 may include available house [sic] for each ATM 106).
Regarding claim 37, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The method of claim 36, further comprising excluding, from the outputting, any service device that is not accessible based on the second location (see Benkreira at least [0048] For example, if an ATM 106 is within a facility that closes at 10 pm, and the customer is performing this operation at 10:15 pm, ATM handler 118 may omit all ATMs that are inaccessible after 10 pm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending method disclosed by McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira to include the consideration of device availability relative to the facility within which it is nested of Benkreira. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because operating hours of relevant institutions can be accessed through databases and is crucial for providing feasible device suggestions for a user, as suggested by Benkreira (see Benkreira at least [0048] ATM handler 118 may communicate with database 108 to access ATM information 128… ATM information 128 may include available house [sic] for each ATM 106).
Regarding claim 39¸ McCoy discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a control system (see McCoy at least [0003] an apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions), cause the control system to:
access, from a plurality of decentralized databases, location information and operational status information associated with a plurality of service devices
(see McCoy at least [0024] The one or more computer-readable media of library 104 may store information about ATMs 105 and/or retail banking centers 106, and the information may be organized and accessible such as using a database software application… each ATM of ATMs 105 (e.g., ATM 1, ATM 2, ATM 3, etc.) may be associated with a location and one or more non-location properties of the respective ATM. The non-location properties may include, for instance, whether the ATM or retail banking center is currently operational (available for conducting financial transactions));
identify, based on a geographic location associated with a user device and based on a function, one or more candidate service devices at which the function is performable (see McCoy at least [0024] The non-location properties may include… functional capabilities of the ATM (e.g., talking ATM, braille ATM, video assistance (VTM) capable, having an optical deposited check reader, etc.)… server 103 may use the information stored by library 104 to determine a subset of the ATMs and/or retail banking centers (and their corresponding locations and/or properties) to be sent to mobile device 101);
determine, for each of the one or more candidate service devices, whether the function is currently performable based on the operational status information (see McCoy at least [claim 18] determining the subset based on which of the ATMs, the VTMs, or the retail banking centers are currently available for conducting financial transactions);
identify that a first service device is located in a second location that provides access to the first service device (see McCoy at least [0024] The non-location properties may include… whether the ATM is within a building or outside a building); and
output data indicating the first service device for use in a user interface or for controlling access to the first service device based on the function being currently performable and the first service device being accessible (see McCoy at least [0051] the user may be given the opportunity to view the ATM or other point of interest associated with that geo-fence 303 on a map displayed on the display of mobile device 101).
McCoy does not teach: a plurality of decentralized databases; aggregate the location information and operational status information; determine whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location.
However, Chakraborty teaches: a plurality of decentralized databases (see Chakraborty at least [0027] the mobile device of the first party runs an application being in contact with a server or a decentralized block chain based system, and a mobile device of the second party runs an application being in contact with the same server or block chain based system);
aggregate the location information and operational status information (see Chakraborty at least [0113] In a simple case, the known information on time and location is collected).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending non-transitory computer readable medium disclosed by McCoy to include the decentralized architecture of Chakraborty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a method incorporates preferences and availability information from myriad sources, allowing for personalized filtering and recommendations, as suggested by Chakraborty (see Chakraborty at least [0036] Preferably, a collaborative filtering algorithm is applied to generate a recommendation based on the user affinity and the recorded properties. The efficiency of such approaches is known from recommender systems).
McCoy and Chakraborty do not teach: determine whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location.
However, Benkreira teaches: determine whether the first service device is accessible for performing the function based on accessibility of the second location (see Benkreira at least [0048] For example, if an ATM 106 is within a facility that closes at 10 pm, and the customer is performing this operation at 10:15 pm, ATM handler 118 may omit all ATMs that are inaccessible after 10 pm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending non-transitory computer readable medium disclosed by McCoy and Chakraborty to include the consideration of device availability relative to the facility within which it is nested of Benkreira. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because operating hours of relevant institutions can be accessed through databases and is crucial for providing feasible device suggestions for a user, as suggested by Benkreira (see Benkreira at least [0048] ATM handler 118 may communicate with database 108 to access ATM information 128… ATM information 128 may include available house [sic] for each ATM 106).
Regarding claim 40, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 39, wherein determining accessibility comprises determining that the first service device is accessible only when the second location is accessible (see Benkreira at least [0048] For example, if an ATM 106 is within a facility that closes at 10 pm, and the customer is performing this operation at 10:15 pm, ATM handler 118 may omit all ATMs that are inaccessible after 10 pm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending non-transitory computer readable medium disclosed by McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira to include the consideration of device availability relative to the facility within which it is nested of Benkreira. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because operating hours of relevant institutions can be accessed through databases and is crucial for providing feasible device suggestions for a user, as suggested by Benkreira (see Benkreira at least [0048] ATM handler 118 may communicate with database 108 to access ATM information 128… ATM information 128 may include available house [sic] for each ATM 106).
Claim(s) 24, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy, in view of Chakraborty, further in view of Benkreira, and further in view of US 20190147421 A1 PHILLIPS; Jeremy et al. (hereinafter Phillips).
Regarding claim 24, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21.
McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira do not teach: wherein aggregating comprises converting at least a portion of the location information and operational status information into a standardized schema.
However, Phillips teaches: wherein aggregating comprises converting at least a portion of the location information and operational status information into a standardized schema (see Phillips at least [0060] For example, ATM recommendation platform 230 may need to use different communications protocols and/or messages to communicate with ATM devices 220 associated with different financial institutions, may need to format data from different ATM devices 220 into a uniform format, may need to normalize data from different ATM devices 220 (e.g., normalize to a uniform scale), may need to aggregate data from ATM devices 220 associated with different financial institutions, may need to receive encrypted data from ATM devices 220 (e.g., because ATM recommendation platform 230 is receiving data not available to a user of ATM device 220), and/or the like).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending system disclosed by McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira to include the ATM data aggregation and normalization of Phillips. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because receiving information from different sources or techniques may require manipulation in order to acquire the necessary information for the user’s desired processing, as suggested by Phillips (see Phillips at least [0059] because ATM recommendation platform 230 is receiving information from ATM devices 220 and not via input by a user of user device 210 and/or ATM recommendation platform 230, additional techniques may be needed to receive the information from networks of ATM devices 220, such as information that would not be available to a user of ATM device 220 (e.g., information identifying an amount of cash in a cash supply of ATM device 220)).
Regarding claim 38, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The method of claim 36.
McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira do not teach: wherein aggregating comprises normalizing data received from the plurality of decentralized databases.
However, Phillips teaches: wherein aggregating comprises normalizing data received from the plurality of decentralized databases (see Phillips at least [0060] For example, ATM recommendation platform 230 may need to use different communications protocols and/or messages to communicate with ATM devices 220 associated with different financial institutions, may need to format data from different ATM devices 220 into a uniform format, may need to normalize data from different ATM devices 220 (e.g., normalize to a uniform scale), may need to aggregate data from ATM devices 220 associated with different financial institutions, may need to receive encrypted data from ATM devices 220 (e.g., because ATM recommendation platform 230 is receiving data not available to a user of ATM device 220), and/or the like).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending method disclosed by McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira to include the ATM data aggregation and normalization of Phillips. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because receiving information from different sources or techniques may require manipulation in order to acquire the necessary information for the user’s desired processing, as suggested by Phillips (see Phillips at least [0059] because ATM recommendation platform 230 is receiving information from ATM devices 220 and not via input by a user of user device 210 and/or ATM recommendation platform 230, additional techniques may be needed to receive the information from networks of ATM devices 220, such as information that would not be available to a user of ATM device 220 (e.g., information identifying an amount of cash in a cash supply of ATM device 220)).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy, in view of Chakraborty, further in view of Benkreira, and further in view of US 20200387887 A1 Rathod; Yogesh (hereinafter Rathod).
Regarding claim 33, McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira disclose: The control system of claim 21.
McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira do not teach: wherein the output comprises an indication of a digital location at which the function is performable.
However, Rathod teaches: wherein the output comprises an indication of a digital location at which the function is performable (see Rathod at least [0347] in the event of selecting place 1605 on maps 1610 and in the event of clicking or tapping or inputting or selecting merchant's website uniform resource locator (URL) or web address 1640 or in another embodiment directly inputting or selecting uniform resource locator (URL) 1650 in web browser 282, server 110 module 189 receives request to access said clicked or tapped or selected website uniform resource locator (URL) or web address 1640 associated website or webpage from maps interface 1610 of maps application 281 or browser application 282 of user client device 130 (200)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device recommending system disclosed by McCoy, Chakraborty, and Benkreira to include the digital banking option in ATM search results of Rathod. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because banking websites may be used for the payment service that the user desires, as suggested by Rathod (see Rathod at least [0347] Server 110 module 189 invoking or opening said clicked or tapped or selected website URL or web address associated website or webpage associated with registered merchant or open said website or webpage from merchant's server and load integrated payment user interface (UI)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 21-40 (remarks page 12-13), the applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because of new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 21-40, the applicant's arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
(A) applicant argues, "Applicant respectfully submits… It is therefore apparent…" (from remarks page 8)
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the streamlined analysis of pending claims, Examiner has identified recitation of at least one judicial exception that is not clearly integrated into practical application. This recitation warrants further detailed analysis in order to determine the subject matter eligibility – or lack thereof – of the pending claim set.
(B) applicant argues, "Independent claim 21 is directed… The claim does not recite… The claim likewise… Independent claims 36 and 39… Accordingly…" (from remarks pages 17-19)
As to point (B), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention includes steps such as identifying devices that fit some criteria in a variety of different ways. The identification and determination steps may be interpreted as actions that could be performed in the human mind. Each falls into the general category of making a judgment (e.g., making a judgment of whether or not the function is performable, making a judgment of whether or not the device is within another location, etc.), something that a person could do mentally. Additionally, the aggregating act can be performed by a human person mentally collecting similar things – in this case, location and status information. While these steps do involve data, the steps of interpreting that data are considered to be judicial exceptions.
(C) applicant argues, "Even if the claim were viewed… Claim 21 recites… This is not a result-oriented claim…" (from remarks pages 10-11)
As to point (C), Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claimed invention does involve computers, such generically recited computers and data gathering or displaying steps add insignificant extra-solution activity to the recited judicial exceptions, instead of incorporating the recited judicial exceptions into practical application. Ultimately, the judicial exceptions as claimed are used only to be output, which does not limit the judicial exceptions in a meaningful way. Generally, for location-selecting or route-planning type inventions, a practical application of judicial exceptions may include a step such as driving a vehicle to the selected location (i.e., active control of a vehicle, etc.). A specification-supported recitation of similar active control may provide the practical application to overcome this rejection. As such, the claimed invention, when viewed as a whole remains patent ineligible due to its failure to integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
(D) applicant argues, "Even assuming arguendo… Claim 21 does not merely recite… These features are not recited… Independent claims 36… Accordingly..." (from remarks pages 11-12)
As to point (D), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention as newly claimed recites a series of mental process judicial exceptions preceded by instructions to implement the process on a computer and receive data from a source, and then followed by outputting the data. When viewed as a whole, the claimed invention offers a system, method, and storage device which fail to provide practical application. While the claimed invention does use computers to execute the steps of the process, the computers are recited at a high level of generality, and the actual improvement is not seen in the computers themselves or within any other technical field but the claim is directed at those recited judicial exceptions. As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 stands for the independent claims and all dependents thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 6200041 B1 Itsuo Kimichi et al. recites extracting location and business hour information of ATMs
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLE ROSE KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1742. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 ET M-F.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ELLE ROSE KNUDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
9/23/26
Prosecution Insights