DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in response to the application filed on November 28, 2023.
2. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "S104" and "S105" have both been used to designate notify the customer and staff of the reservation content. (See Figure 10 and Applicant Spec page 19, lines 20-22)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
5. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
- In reference to Figure 10, the figure uses reference character S105, however this reference character is not used in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
6. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “S104” has been used to designate both acquire input information and notify customer and staff of reservation content. (See Figure 10 and Applicant Spec page 19, lines 15-22)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of Claims 2 and 4, the claims recite “wherein anther one or more processors are configured to…” It appears that this should more properly refer to “wherein another one of the one or more processors…” in each instance. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the limitations in this manner, however, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
8. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e. the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
As in Claim 1:
control to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account of a customer of the financial transaction;
notify the customer of a password required for paying out cash from the second account
As in Claim 12:
controlling to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account of a customer of the financial transaction
notifying the customer of a password required for paying out cash from the second account.
As in Claim 13:
controlling to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account of a customer of the financial transaction
notifying the customer of a password required for paying out cash from the second account
As in Claim 2:
issue an instruction to transfer the designated amount of fund from the first account to the second account
generate the second account associated with customer identification information for identifying the customer according to the instruction;
As in Claim 4:
instruct to set the character string information to the password of the second account when the instruction to transfer the designated amount of funds is issued
As in Claim 9:
control communication for connecting a customer terminal used by the customer and a staff terminal used by a staff of the financial transaction
display an input form for receiving an information of the designated amount, on the customer terminal, in response to a request from the staff terminal.
As in Claim 11:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute an instruction to set a fee required for paying out cash from the second account to be different from a fee required for paying out cash from the first account.
Additionally, Applicant uses the following terms in their claims:
Character string information: (as used in Claims 3-4)
The term is disclosed by the specification in terms of examples.
In one instance, the specification indicates “[t]he customer identification information, is, for example, information of a character string assigned to a customer in a financial institution, but may be an account number of the first account or the like.” (See Applicant Spec page 8, lines 11-13) In another instance the specification indicates that “[t]he password is character string information necessary for paying out cash from the second account.” (See Applicant Spec page 14, lines 23-24) Another section of the specification indicates “[t] he notification unit 1300 may display character string information itself, which is a password, on the customer terminal 10.” (See Applicant Spec page 15, lines 8-9)
Further, the specification indicates:
“The setting unit 320 sets a password in the account. Specifically, when the second account is generated by the account generation unit 310, the setting unit 320 sets a password to the generated second account. The password to be set is predetermined character string information. For example, the character string information includes at least one of a number, an alphabet, and a symbol. The password to be set is information required for withdrawal from the second account. For example, when the customer withdraws cash from the second account using the ATM, it is necessary to input the password.”
“The password to be set may be generated by the setting unit 320. For example, the setting unit 320 may randomly generate character string information and set the generated character string information as the generated password of the second account. At this time, the setting unit 320 may generate character string information different from the passcode set to the first account.” (See Applicant Spec page 16, lines 9-21)
Consistent with the disclosure of the specification, for purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret “character string information” to be at least one of a number, alphabet and a symbol and may be randomly generated or set. The character string information, in context, is used as a password.
Conversion information: (as used in Claims 5-8)
The term “conversion information” is only used once in the specification:
“The notification unit 1300 may notify the password by various methods. For example, the notification unit 1300 converts the password into information that allows access to the password. Then, the notification unit 1300 causes the customer terminal 10 to display the converted information. Fig. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of a password notification method. As illustrated in Fig. 8, for example, the notification unit 1300 may display a two-dimensional barcode accessible to a password on the customer terminal 10. The customer acquires the password by reading the two-dimensional barcode. The notification unit 1300 may display a URL for accessing the password on the customer terminal 10. As described above, the notification unit 1300 may cause the customer terminal 10 used by the customer to display information (conversion information) that is obtained by converting the password and that can acquire the password. The notification unit 1300 may display character string information itself, which is a password, on the customer terminal 10.
Not limited to this example, a notification unit 140 may notify the password by, for example, transmitting an e-mail addressed to the e-mail address of the customer. The notification unit 140 may notify the password by transmitting an SMS addressed to the telephone number of the customer.” (See Applicant Spec page 14, line 26- page 15, line 13)
The specification does not limit or define conversion information, rather, it gives use examples. As the claims do not limit the conversion information with any details that may have been conveyed by example and the specification does not provide a definition, for purposes of examination, any conversion process is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
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.
9. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites a system with one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute instructions to perform steps. In the third limitation, the claim recites “acquire transaction information including information about a designated amount, the designated amount being an amount of money designated in a financial transaction through a network”, however in the fourth limitation recites “control to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account of a customer of the financial transaction”.
It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim because the terminology is inconsistent and the mechanism by which the steps are occurring are unclear. The transaction information is acquired and includes information about a designated amount which is an amount of money designated in a financial transaction. The step of control to transfer the designated amount of fund has a few issues.
One, Examiner is unclear what function or step(s) “control to transfer” is attempting to convey and secondly, “the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information…” has imperfect and inaccurate antecedent basis.
The term “fund” is not used previously in the claim, rather the claim refers to “an amount of money”. It is not clear if Applicant is attempting to convey something else with the recitation of “the designated amount of fund” or if this is an oversight and should more properly refer to “the designated amount of money”. Dependent claims 2, 4 and 9 are also impacted for a substantially similar basis and refer to “the designated amount of fund” and “the designated amount” which also have antecedent basis issues. Applicant is requested to unify the terminology consistently through the claim set.
Independent Claims 12-13 have a substantially similar issue and are similarly rejected. Dependent claims 2-11 are further rejected as based on a rejected base claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
As in Claim 2, the one or more processors are recited to be configured to execute the instructions to: “issue an instruction to transfer…”. It is unclear how many steps may or may not be involved or how the instruction is being issued. Is this a verbal instruction? Is this being conducted through a user interface operated by a customer, or one operated by another entity or person? As recited, it is not clear. It appears that other steps would have to occur prior to getting to a point where some sort of instruction would be invoked to transfer funds between accounts. Further, it is unclear how this limitation of Claim 2 is serving to further limit the recitation of “control to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account”. Is this the same instruction, something different, additional steps? It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim and add to the claim set.
Additionally, Claim 2 further recites “where anther [sic] one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to:…”. As noted above with respect to the claim interpretation section, for purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the limitation as referring to another of the one or more processors, i.e., the processor being used is one of the original set of one or more processors recited in the independent claim. However, it is also possible that Applicant is referring to another set of one or more processors that are outside of the original one or more processors of the transaction processing system recited in Claim 1. There is no clear way of knowing what Applicant is intending to claim. Claims 3-4 and 6 are further rejected as based on a rejected base claim. Claim 4 has a substantially similar issue as Claim 2 and is similarly rejected for the same basis and reasons.
Regarding Claims 5-8, in each case, the substantially similar claims recite that the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to “convert the password to a conversion information and display the conversion information on a display of a customer terminal used by the customer. It is unclear what process is occurring to convert the password or what a conversion information is as distinct from a password that is converted. As noted above in the claim interpretation section, there is disclosure of converting the password into information that allows access to the password on page 14 of the specification, however no indication of how this is occurring. It appears that steps may be missing in order to make this limitation make sense. There is no process in the claims that provides structural or logical bridges between notifying the customer of a password required for paying out cash from the second account and the conversion information or how the conversion information comes to be displayed on a customer terminal. This may give rise to a 112(a) rejection upon clarification as at present, it is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites in part “control communication for connecting a customer terminal used by the customer and a staff terminal used by a staff of the financial transaction”. It is unclear how this is occurring. It is unclear how, in the second limitation, the input form ends up on the customer terminal. It is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim.
Regarding Claim 10, here again, it appears that steps are missing that are required in order to present a cogent invention. Here there are instructions to acquire a biological information of the customer from the customer terminal. What element is doing the acquiring? Is this simply retrieving saved data of the customer from their customer terminal and then comparing it to stored data in a database? If so, where is the database that the information is claimed to be registered in? Is the Applicant attempting to claim that there is some mechanism to capture the biological information? If so, how is this being done? There does not appear to be any recitation of the supporting systemization that would be required in order to effectuate such a process.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
10. Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In reference to Claim 2, the claim recites “issue an instruction to transfer…”. it is unclear how this limitation is serving to further limit the recitation of “control to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account” of Claim 1. Claims 3-4 and 6 are further rejected as based on a rejected base claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
11. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a system claim. Claim 12 recites a method claim. Claim 13 recites a non-transitory recording medium claim.
Currently, the method and non-transitory recording medium claims have a separate rejection as being non-statutory (as shown below) but Examiner assumes that Applicant will rectify the claims to properly claim the invention as within statutory categories.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of conducting transactions by conducting fund transfers to pay out cash. The idea is described by the following limitations:
acquire transaction information including information about a designated amount, the designated amount being an amount of money designated in a financial transaction;
to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account of a customer of the financial transaction;
notify the customer of a password required for paying out cash from the second account.
Claim 12 recites the abstract idea of conducting transactions by conducting fund transfers to pay out cash. The idea is described by the following limitations:
acquiring transaction information including information of a designated amount, the designated amount being an amount of money designated in a financial transaction;
to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account of a customer of the financial transaction;
notifying a customer of a password required for paying out cash from the second account.
Claim 13 recites the abstract idea of conducting transactions by conducting fund transfers to pay out cash. The idea is described by the following limitations:
acquiring transaction information including information of a designated amount, the designated amount being an amount of money designated in a financial transaction;
to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account of a customer of the financial transaction;
notifying the customer of a password required for paying out cash from the second account.
Applicant’s specification indicates that “[a]n object of the present disclosure is to provide a transaction support system and the like capable of supporting appropriate payment of funds generated in a financial transaction to a customer when the transaction is performed via a network. (See Applicant Spec page 2, lines 1-5)
Under a BRI, the claims reflect no more than an existing approach to effectuate a transaction by conducting fund transfers between two customer accounts and notifying the customer of a password required to pay out cash from the second account. For instance, this could be encompassed by a customer setting up a transfer of a particular amount for a transaction from a first to a second account through a network and the system requesting a password to pay out cash from the second account such as may be effectuated through, for instance, a teller at a bank or a customer at an ATM.
As a result, the abstract ideas describe certain methods of organizing human activity.
As to certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps describe fundamental principles or practices; commercial interactions; and managing personal behavior or interactions between people (i.e., acquire transaction information including information about a designated amount, the designated amount being an amount of money designated in a financial transaction; to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account of a customer of the financial transaction; notify the customer of a password required for paying out cash from the second account.) (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 1 recites one or more memories storing instructions; one or more processors configured to execute the instructions; and a network.
Claim 12 recites a network.
Claim 13 recites a non-transitory recording medium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to execute the recited steps and a network.
Further, the method outlined in Claim 12 does not sufficiently tie the method steps to a particular machine within the body of the claim. As such, the recitations are further failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application on this basis.
In particular, the claims only recite one or more memories storing instructions; one or more processors configured to execute the instructions; a network; a non-transitory recording medium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to execute which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 12-13 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); performing repetitive calculations (Bancorp – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and electronically scanning or extracting data (Content Extraction – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“The customer terminal 10 is a terminal used by a customer. The staff terminal 20 is a terminal used by a staff of a financial institution. The staff of the financial institution is, for example, a bank employee. The present invention is not limited thereto, and the staff of the financial institution may be, for example, a specialized operator. Hereinafter, the staff of the financial institution is also simply referred to as a staff.
The customer terminal 10 and the staff terminal 20 may be a smartphone, a tablet terminal, or the like. The customer terminal 10 and the staff terminal 20 include various input devices and output devices. Examples of the input device include a keyboard, a microphone, and a camera. The output device is a display, a speaker, or the like. Specific examples of the customer terminal 10 and the staff terminal 20 are not limited to this example.” (See Applicant Spec page 5, lines 4-16)
“The authentication unit 130 has a function of authenticating a customer. The authentication unit 130 is an example of an authentication means. Specifically, in the transaction phase, the acquisition unit 1100 acquires the biological information of the customer from the customer terminal 10. The biological information is, for example, information indicating features such as a face, an iris, and a vein of the customer. The authentication unit 130 performs customer identification based on acquired biological information. At this time, the information processing device 100 has a database in which the customer identification information and the biological information of the customer are associated with each other. The authentication unit 130 collates the acquired biological information with the biological information registered in the database. When the collation is matched, the authentication unit 130 determines that the customer in the transaction is the same person as the customer who has reserved the interview (is a correct customer). That is, the authentication unit 130 authenticates the customer.” (See Applicant Spec page 28, lines 9-22)
“The customer terminal 10 may not be a device owned by a customer. The customer terminal 10 may be installed in a store of a financial institution. In this case, for example, the customer terminal 10 may be installed in a dedicated booth partitioned in the store of the financial institution.” (See Applicant Spec page 29, lines 19-22)
“Hardware constituting the above-described first and second embodiments of the transaction support system will be described. Fig. 15 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a hardware configuration of a computer device that implements the transaction support system according to each example embodiment. In a computer device 90, the transaction support system and the transaction support method described in each example embodiment and each modification are achieved. For example, each of the information processing device, the business system, the backbone system, and the like described in each example embodiment and each modification may have the hardware configuration illustrated in Fig. 15.
As illustrated in Fig. 15, the computer device 9- includes a processor 91, a random access memory (RAM) 92, a read only memory (ROM) 93, a storage device 94, an input/output interface 95, a bus 96, and a drive device 97. The transaction support system may be implemented by a plurality of electric circuits.
The storage device 94 stores a program (computer program) 98. The processor 91 executes the program 98 of the present transaction support system using the RAM 92. Specifically, for example, the program 98 includes a program that causes a computer to execute the processing of the signal processing device described in Figs. 3, 10, 11, and 12. The processor 91 executes the program 98 to implement the functions of the components of the present transaction support system. The program 98 may be stored in the ROM 93. The program 98 may be recorded in the storage medium 80 and read using the drive device 97, or may be transmitted from an external device (not illustrated) to the computer device 90 via a network (not illustrated).” (See Applicant Spec page 31, line 16-page 32, line 8)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 1 and 12-13 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-11 further define the abstract idea that is presented in Independent claim 1 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above.
Dependent claim 4 further recites a customer terminal. Dependent Claims 5-8 each recite a display of a customer terminal. Dependent claims 7-8 recite a customer terminal. Dependent claim 9 recites a customer terminal and a staff terminal. Dependent Claim 10 recites the customer terminal and a database. In each instance, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 12, Examiner notes that the method of Claim 12 would also have been rejected under the earlier §101 standards based upon In re Bilski, which have been superseded by the current §101 standards based upon the Alice-Mayo test. Specifically, Claim 12 contains an insufficient recitation of a machine or transformation as the involvement of the machine. There is no direct tie between a machine and the limitations of the independent claim, nor to the subsequent dependent claims. Examiner is only noting this as §101 under the Alice-Mayo test is considered a substantially higher bar than under In re Bilski. Examiner suggests Applicant incorporate language into the body of the claim reciting the machine elements performing the recited process.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because, in order to comply with §101, a computer program product claim must recite that the computer program product comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions (or code) embodied thereon and said instructions are configured to control a computer to perform specific functional steps. The claim must then recite the specific functional steps performed by execution of the instructions contained on the computer-readable medium by the computer, rather than reciting the code or software itself (i.e. software per se is not patentable). A computer program product, when properly claimed, describes the method steps performed when executed by a computer system, not the code or software itself.
The preamble for a computer program product has to state that (1) the product is stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (which is present), (2) the product can be executed on a computer (which is not clearly present) and (3) when executed the product causes the computer to perform a method (which is not clearly present) where the further claim limitations are written as method steps. It is the actual the method being performed by the computer which is patentable, rather than the software itself.
Here, the preamble of claim 13 recites “[a] non-transitory recording medium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to execute:” In the manner claimed, it is not clear that the stored program is being executed on a computer to perform the method, rather, by reciting “for causing a computer to execute” there could be any number of intermediate steps in the “for causing” a computer to perform any steps. Further, as the computer is recited “to execute”, it is not clear if there are other steps being performed or if the instructions are causing other instructions outside of those stored on the claimed recording medium to take place. Thus, Claim 13 is also non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
12. Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rizzo et al. (US PG Pub. 2002/0069170) (“Rizzo”)
Regarding Claim 1, Rizzo discloses the following:
A transaction support system comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions; and (See Rizzo Abstract and para 9)
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: (See Rizzo Abstract an para 9)
acquire transaction information including information about a designated amount, the designated amount being an amount of money designated in a financial transaction through a network; (See Rizzo paras 23-25)
control to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account of a customer of the financial transaction; and (See Rizzo paras 24-25 – when the originator sets up the authorization for the cash transaction, the amount of cash specified for transfer, plus a fee are immediately withdrawn from the source account [first account] to a temporary or escrow account [second account]
notify the customer of a password required for paying out cash from the second account. (See Rizzo para 24-25 – recipient identifies themselves using a unique identification code provided to the originator)
Regarding Claim 12, Rizzo discloses the following:
A transaction support method comprising:
acquiring transaction information including information of a designated amount, the designated amount being an amount of money designated in a financial transaction through a network; (See Rizzo paras 23-25)
controlling to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account of a customer of the financial transaction; and (See Rizzo paras 24-25 – when the originator sets up the authorization for the cash transaction, the amount of cash specified for transfer, plus a fee are immediately withdrawn from the source account [first account] to a temporary or escrow account [second account]
notifying the customer of a password required for paying out cash from the second account. (See Rizzo para 24-25 – recipient identifies themselves using a unique identification code provided to the originator)
Regarding Claim 13, Rizzo discloses the following:
A non-transitory recording medium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to execute:
acquiring transaction information including information of a designated amount, the designated amount being an amount of money designated in a financial transaction through a network; (See Rizzo paras 23-25)
controlling to transfer the designated amount of fund in the acquired transaction information from a first account to a second account of a customer of the financial transaction; and (See Rizzo paras 24-25 – when the originator sets up the authorization for the cash transaction, the amount of cash specified for transfer, plus a fee are immediately withdrawn from the source account [first account] to a temporary or escrow account [second account]
notifying the customer of a password required for paying out cash from the second account. (See Rizzo para 24-25 – recipient identifies themselves using a unique identification code provided to the originator)
Regarding Claim 2, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Rizzo discloses the following:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to:
issue an instruction to transfer the designated amount of fund from the first account to the second account, wherein anther one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to: (See Rizzo paras 24-25)
generate the second account associated with customer identification information for identifying the customer according to the instruction; and (See Rizzo paras 12, 15-16, 24-25)
transfer the designated amount of fund from the first account to the generated second account. (See Rizzo paras 24-25)
Regarding Claim 3, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 2 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Rizzo discloses the following:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
generate character string information in response to the generation of the second account; and (See Rizzo paras 12, 24-25, 28, 30)
set the generated character string information as the password of the second account. (See Rizzo paras 12, 15-16, 24-25)
Regarding Claim 4, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 2 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Rizzo discloses the following:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire character string information input in a customer terminal used by the customer; (See Rizzo paras 10, 12, 15-16, 24-25, 28, 30)
instruct to set the character string information to the password of the second account when the instruction to transfer the designated amount of fund is issued, and (See Rizzo paras 10, 12, 15-16, 24-25)
wherein anther one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to:
set the character string information as the password of the second account. (See Rizzo paras 12, 15-16, 24-25)
Regarding Claim 5, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Rizzo discloses the following:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
convert the password to a conversion information; and (See Rizzo paras 10, 12)
display the conversion information on a display of a customer terminal used by the customer. (See Rizzo paras 10, 12 – financial institution server randomly generates and furnishes the originator with a unique authentication code associated with the recipient identification information via the access portal)
Regarding Claim 6, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 2 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Rizzo discloses the following:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
convert the password to a conversion information; and (See Rizzo paras 10, 12)
display the conversion information on a display of a customer terminal used by the customer. (See Rizzo paras 10, 12 – financial institution server randomly generates and furnishes the originator with a unique authentication code associated with the recipient identification information via the access portal)
Regarding Claim 7, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 3 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Rizzo discloses the following:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
convert the password to a conversion information; and (See Rizzo paras 10, 12)
display the conversion information on a display of a customer terminal used by the customer. (See Rizzo paras 10, 12 – financial institution server randomly generates and furnishes the originator with a unique authentication code associated with the recipient identification information via the access portal)
Regarding Claim 8, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 4 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Rizzo discloses the following:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
convert the password to a conversion information; and (See Rizzo paras 10, 12)
display the conversion information on a display of a customer terminal used by the customer. (See Rizzo paras 10, 12 – financial institution server randomly generates and furnishes the originator with a unique authentication code associated with the recipient identification information via the access portal)
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 nonobviousness.
13. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Curtin et al. (US Patent 6,681,985) (“Curtin”)
Regarding Claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Rizzo in view of Curtin discloses the following:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
control communication for connecting a customer terminal used by the customer and a staff terminal used by a staff of the financial transaction; and
display an input form for receiving an information of the designated amount, on the customer terminal, in response to a request from the staff terminal.
While Rizzo as disclosed above in reference to Claim 1 discloses performing a cash transaction with a self-service financial transaction terminal, it does not further disclose connecting a customer terminal used by a customer and a staff terminal used by a staff of the financial institution or display a form to receive information in response to a request from the staff terminal.
Curtin discloses processing financial transactions for a customer in a financial institution and in particular customers may withdraw cash from a teller cash dispenser after providing proper authorization, such as a password, a receipt with a bar code or other authorization method. (See Curtin Col. 4 line 62-Col. 5, line 6) Further, a teller tower may allow a CRR (Customer Relationship Representative) to perform customer support and banking functions to interact with the teller machines. (See Curtin Col. 7, lines 14-52 and Fig. 1)
The bank server may also be interconnected to one or more wall teller cash dispensers (wall TCDs) via a computer network, all of which are part of the teller tower system. (See Curtin Col. 7, lines 40-44) The wall TCDs may be used to dispense cash to customers from a wall station upon receiving commands or authorization from the bank server, similarly to part of the function of an ATM. (See Curtin Col. 7, lines 44-47) For example, a CRR with an eTeller could provide a receipt with an authorization number to a customer, who would then use the authorization number to receive cash from a wall TCD. (See Curtin Col. 7, lines 47-52)
The bank server may also be interconnected to one or more eTellers via a computer network and/or a wireless base station or receiver/transceiver that facilitates wireless communication between the bank server and eTellers, such as portable financial data processing platforms. (See Curtin Col. 7, lines 53-63) The eTellers are used by bank employees to provide many of the traditional teller functions from a portable, wireless device. (See Curtin Col. 7, lines 64-67) In this embodiment software on the eTeller provides an interface for the user, such as a CRR, to interact with the bank server. (See Curtin Col. 7, line 67-Col. 8 line 2) By utilizing this interface, the user may perform a wide variety of transactions, including transferring money between accounts that may be performed via a hand-held wireless platform utilized only when needed. (See Curtin Col. 8, lines 2-10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Rizzo with the use of CRRs able to interact with teller towers/cash withdraw systems as disclosed by Curtin in order to shorten lines at teller computers and allow customers with relatively easy demands to be serviced quickly and efficiently while still retaining the ability to gain assistance if needed.
14. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzo et al. in view of Curtin as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Janiga (US Patent 11,610,191) (“Janiga”)
Regarding Claim 10, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 9 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Rizzo in view of Curtin and Janiga disclose the following:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire a biological information of the customer from the customer terminal; and
authenticate the customer using the acquired biological information and a biological information registered in a database.
While Rizzo in view of Curtin describe the invention as disclosed above, they do not further disclose acquiring biological information of the customer from the customer terminal and authenticating the customer using the acquired biological information and biological information registered in a database.
Janiga discloses his invention as to technology for withdrawing cash from a cash transaction machine by use of a mobile payment application installed on a mobile device of a consumer user. (See Janiga Abstract)
As used in Janiga, the term “cash transaction machine” (CTM) refers to a computer system comprising one or more hardware and software components that are capable of causing cash to be dispensed at a physical location and can include, for example, a computer system of an ATM associated with a financial institution (e.g., a commercial bank). (See Janiga Col. 2, lines 10-23)
The mobile payment application is in communication with a remote payment service system (PSS) that is employed by a payment service. (See Janiga Col. 2, line 67 to Col. 3, line 3) Janiga further discloses that in some embodiments, the PSS transmits, to the selected CTM, biometric information associated with the user and the selected CRM can use the biometric information (along with a transaction code) to verify the user when she attempts to obtain the withdrawal amount at the selected CTM. (See Janiga Col. 5, lines 5-10) For example, the user provides the code along with her fingerprint at the selected CTM to obtain the cash and in some embodiments, where the selected CTM generates the code, the selected CTM can utilize the biometric information in the code generation. (See Janiga Col. 5, lines 8-16 – acquire biological information of the customer)
In some embodiments where the PSS requires that the consumer user provide additional personal identifying information before a CTM transaction will be allowed, such as biometric information relating to the consumer user (e.g., a photo of the consumer user, a fingerprint, a voice sample, an iris scan, etc.), the biometric information would later be provided to a particular CTM (e.g., via the application) so that this particular CTM can compare the biometric information to a biometric identifier (e.g., via fingerprint scanner, retina scanner, facial recognition scan, etc.) provided by the consumer user physically at the CTM location. (See Janiga Col. 6, line 63 – Col. 7, line 7 – authenticate the customer using the acquired biological information) The data associated with the consumer user account can be stored in a database at the PSS (e.g., at the servers) (See Janiga Col. 7, lines 7-11 – biological data stored in database; see also Janiga Col. 8, line 54-Col.9, line 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the system of Rizzo in view of Curtin to include biometric verification of the user before allowing the withdrawal of cash in order to increase transaction security.
14. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Janiga (US Patent 11,610,191) (“Janiga”)
Regarding Claim 11, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Rizzo in view of Janiga discloses the following:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute an instruction to set a fee required for paying out cash from the second account to be different from a fee required for paying out cash from the first account.
While Rizzo describes the invention as disclosed above, it does not further disclose executing an instruction to set a fee required for paying out cash from the second account to be different from a fee required for paying out cash from the first account.
Janiga discloses his invention as to technology for withdrawing cash from a cash transaction machine by use of a mobile payment application installed on a mobile device of a consumer user. (See Janiga Abstract)
As used in Janiga, the term “cash transaction machine” (CTM) refers to a computer system comprising one or more hardware and software components that are capable of causing cash to be dispensed at a physical location and can include, for example, a computer system of an ATM associated with a financial institution (e.g., a commercial bank). (See Janiga Col. 2, lines 10-23)
The mobile payment application is in communication with a remote payment service system (PSS) that is employed by a payment service. (See Janiga Col. 2, line 67 to Col. 3, line 3) Janiga further discloses that in some embodiments, the PSS transmits, to the selected CTM, biometric information associated with the user and the selected CRM can use the biometric information (along with a transaction code) to verify the user when she attempts to obtain the withdrawal amount at the selected CTM. (See Janiga Col. 5, lines 5-10) For example, the user provides the code along with her fingerprint at the selected CTM to obtain the cash and in some embodiments, where the selected CTM generates the code, the selected CTM can utilize the biometric information in the code generation. (See Janiga Col. 5, lines 8-16)
In some embodiments where the PSS requires that the consumer user provide additional personal identifying information before a CTM transaction will be allowed, such as biometric information relating to the consumer user (e.g. a photo of the consumer user, a fingerprint, a voice sample, an iris scan, etc.), the biometric information would later be provided to a particular CTM (e.g., via the application) so that this particular CTM can compare the biometric information to a biometric identifier (e.g., via fingerprint scanner, retina scanner, facial recognition scan, etc.) provided by the consumer user physically at the CTM location. (See Janiga Col. 6, line 63 – Col. 7, line 7 – authenticate the customer using the acquired biological information) The data associated with the consumer user account can be stored in a database at the PSS (e.g., at the servers) (See Janiga Col. 7, lines 7-11 – biological data stored in database; see also Janiga Col. 8, line 54-Col.9, line 5)
After the consumer has withdrawn the cash from the selected CTM, the PSS executes, or initiates a funds transfer between the financial account associated with the consumer and a financial account associated with the selected CTM and in various embodiments, the funds transfer involves a first transaction between the user requesting the cash withdrawal and the selected CTM and a second transaction between the PSS and the selected CTM. (See Janiga Col. 9, lines 6-14) In a business flow according to the CTM technology, the first transaction would be deemed a “money transaction” in which the money is transferred from the selected CTM to the requester and the second transaction would be deemed a “payment transaction” in which the PSS has collected money from the requester on behalf of the selected CTM and in turn provides the money in that transaction to the selected CTM. (See Janiga Col. 9, lines 14-22) As used in Janiga, the term “money transaction” differs from the term “payment transaction” in that the money transaction does not include the transaction fee, that is the money transaction is a physical cash transfer from the CTM to the consumer whereas the “payment transaction” refers to a transaction that is generally larger than a money transaction, and includes a payment transaction fee. (See Janiga Col. 9, lines 22-36)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Rizzo with the disclosure of different fees to be required for the first and second transactions in order to reimburse the CTM operator for his time and/or opportunity cost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 April 5, 2025
Prosecution Insights