DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim objections:
Claim 1 is objected to because while there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence. Claim 1 contains dash marks after “to perform operations including:” The limitations listed after the colon should be separated by semi-colons to conform with the sentence formats and the dash marks should be deleted.
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “training a convolutional neural network based on stored image data of official currency/banknotes.” The Specification in [0126] recites that a convolutional neural network can be pre-trained using image data of banknotes of different currency types. It is not clear if the invention actually “trains” the neural network or uses a pre-trained convolutional neural network.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claim 2 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 2 recites the limitation "the deposit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-6, 15-19, 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of training a convolutional neural network based on stored image data of official currency/banknotes, capturing authentication credentials of a user to authenticate the user as authenticated user and then initiating an active ATM session with the authenticated user; receiving, by the banknote acceptor, a banknote from the authenticated user; dynamically changing, in response to receipt of the banknote, a position of the one or more sensors relative to the banknote acceptor to facilitate capture as image data, one or more images from different regions of at least one surface of the banknote; transmitting the captured image data to the trained neural network; identifying, via the trained neural network ,a currency type and denomination of the banknote; causing a display of an itemization of the banknote on the UI, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention allows for facilitating, at an ATM, a deposit of foreign currency into a financial account based on local or native currency that is based on local or native currency which is a commercial interaction. The mere nominal recitation of a user interface (UI);a bank note acceptor; one or more sensors; one or more processors operatively connected to the one or more sensors for control of the one or more sensors; and a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors, the non-transitory memory including a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform claim operations do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Note that although the claim recites a convolutional neural network, the neural network is recited a high level of generality.
Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements— an ATM comprising a user interface, a banknote acceptor, one or more sensors, one or more processors, and non-transitory memory coupled to the processor(s). The user interface, acceptor, one or more sensors, and processor(s) and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor(s) and a memory including instructions executable by the one or more processors performing a generic computer functions of training a convolutional neural network, capturing authentication credentials, receiving a banknote, dynamically changing a position of one or more sensors, transmitting captured image to neural network, causing display of an itemization of the banknote on the UI) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Although training a neural network is recited, such recitation amounts to appending well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. -see MPEP §2106.05(d).
Accordingly, 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.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claim 15 and hence claims 15 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 15 recites a computer-implemented method for operating an automated teller machine comprising a user interface, a banknote acceptor, one or more sensors, a neural network that amount to generic computer implementation.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a user interface, a banknote acceptor, one or more sensors, one or more processors, a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more sensors, the memory including a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processors to perform the claimed operations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, under Step 2B, the training of convolutional neural networks found to be well-understood, routine and conventional are reevaluated here in Step 2B. The following publications demonstrate the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements:
US 5,729,623 Omatu et al.;
US 2020/0019976 (Lewis et al.);
US 2020/0019776 (Steinlin et al.).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the training of the convolutional neural network limitations are well understood, routine, and conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer Option 3. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-7, 8-14, 16-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-6, 15-19, 21-28 is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-6, 15-19, 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0247136 (Mendoza et al.) in view of Fish et al. (US 2008/0301047) in view of Steinlin et al. (US 2021/0264711).
Re-claim 1: ***It is noted that the Applicants’ specification recites “sensor means any apparatus, device, component and/or system that can perform one or more of detecting, determining, assessing, monitoring, measuring, quantifying, and sensing something.” [0065].
Mendoza discloses:
automated teller machine (ATM) (ATM [0027]), comprising:
a user interface (UI) (Fig. 2 item 206 (communications interface) ;
a banknote acceptor (bill validator device-Fig. 2 item 250 and [0027]);
one or more sensors (imaging and scanning devices [0011], [0030], [0034]);
one or more processors operatively connected to the one or more sensors for control of the one or more sensors (software stored in the memory includes instructions executable by the processor to receive an image from a scanner-[0034]);
and a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors, the non-transitory memory including a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by the one or more processors -see processors and memory implementing instructions - ¶[0028];
cause the one or more processors to perform operations including:
receiving by the banknote acceptor, a banknote from the user –bill validator device of the ATM receives currency bills -[0027].
Although Mendoza discloses receiving, by the banknote acceptor, a bank note from the user-[0027], Mendoza fails to specifically disclose that the user is authenticated and capturing authentication credentials of a user to authenticate the user as authenticated user and then initiating an active ATM session with the authenticated user. Fish however, teaches The ATM network 108 may be used to verify a customer's authentication information (e.g., financial account and personal identification number (PIN)) and to provide authorization to an ATM 102, 104 to perform a transaction.-see [0025].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the automatic processing of foreign currency transactions of Mendoza the ability to authenticate a user of the ATM as taught by Fish since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Mendoza fails to explicitly recite causing a display of an itemization of the banknote on the UI. Fish however, teaches displaying transaction information -see Fig. 5 item 530 and display exchange rate to the consumer through the ATM interface and also foreign currency amount, exchange rate, fees, and native currency amount in [0043].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the automatic processing of foreign currency transactions of Mendoza the ability to display exchange rate to the consumer through the ATM interface and also foreign currency amount, exchange rate, fees, and native currency amount as taught by Fish since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Mendoza fails to disclose training a convolutional neural network based on stored image data of official currency/banknotes. Steinlin however, teaches cash handling machines such as ATMs including one or more sensors arranged to sense one or more properties of currency received, and training a convolutional neural network (CNN particularly suited to recognize visual images- see [0043]-[0047], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the automatic processing of foreign currency transactions of Mendoza the ability to train a convolutional neural network based on stored images of currency data as taught by Steinlin since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Mendoza fails to disclose dynamically changing, in response to receipt of the banknote, a position of the one or more sensors relative to the banknote acceptor to facilitate capture as image data, one or more images from different regions of at least one surface of the banknote; transmitting the captured image data to the trained neural network, identifying via the trained neural network a currency type and denomination of the banknote. Steinlin however, teaches sensing equipment 104 of the cash handling machine 100 comprises one or more sensors arranged to sense one or more properties of each of the received articles 115 being received via the receive path 110, the multiple image sensors arranged to capture different parts of the received article, e.g., arranged to capture an image of the front, of the back face of each note or coin sensing weight, thickness and/or material of articles based on article type.-see [0025], neural networks recognizing the different types and denomination for receiving articles such as cash, -[0050-0051] ;[0082].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mendoza to include changing sensor based on properties of each received article such as currency, transmitting the captured image data to the trained neural network, and identifying the currency type and denomination using the neural network as taught by Steinlin in order to capture different parts of the received article to aid in identification of article, transmitting the captured data to a trained neural network which identifies the currency and denomination and complete a currency transaction.
Re-claim 2. Mendoza discloses wherein the identification of the currency type comprises the identification of a foreign currency type of each banknote in the deposit (identification through imaging device of foreign currency type of tendered currency bills-[0011]).
Re-claim 3. Mendoza disclose wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including converting, in response to the identification, when the identified currency type is a foreign currency type, the foreign currency type to a native currency type ¶[0011]. Fish disclose native currency associated with the financial account of authenticated user ¶[0037], see also ¶¶[0023], [0025], [0026], [0039], Fig. 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the automatic processing of foreign currency of Mendoza the ability to have a customer request to deposit a foreign currency in the ATM, have the funds deposited in an account associated with an ATM card, and that exchange information for exchanging funds in a foreign currency to a native currency as taught by Fish since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 4. Mendoza fails to disclose wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including crediting, in response to the conversion, the financial account. Fish however, discloses crediting a native financial account on ¶¶[0023], [0039], Fig. 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the automatic processing of foreign currency of Mendoza the ability to have a customer request to deposit a foreign currency in the ATM and have the funds deposited in their financial account in the native currency as taught by Fish since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 5. Fish, not Mendoza, discloses wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including causing a visual display of an itemization of each banknote to be deposited in the financial account. -see Fig. 5 item 535 and [0039], receipt of foreign currency, provided to user-[0043-0045].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the automatic processing of foreign currency of Mendoza the ability to provide a visual display of an itemization of each banknote to be deposited as taught by Fish since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 6. Fish, not Mendoza, discloses wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including causing a visual display of: the identified foreign currency type, and a converted value of the identified foreign currency type based on the current exchange rate. -[0043].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the automatic processing of foreign currency of Mendoza the ability to provide a visual display of the identified foreign currency type, and a converted value of the identified foreign currency type based on the current exchange rate as taught by Fish since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15 has similar limitations found in claim 1 above and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale.
Claims 16-18 have similar limitations found in claims 2-4 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 19 has similar limitations found in claims 5 and 6 in combination above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Re-claim 21:Mendoza discloses wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations further including detecting, when the identified currency type is a foreign currency type, a current exchange rate for the foreign currency type based on stored data and/or wireless communication network data (Bill validator operates to provide a currency denomination and denomination values of tendered currency bills…the POS terminal converts the value of the received currency to a standard denomination of the POS terminal. For example, a Mexican Peso value may be converted to US Dollars, based on currency conversion data that may be stored locally on the POS terminal or may be accessed via a network by the POS terminal-[0011].
Re-claim 22. Mendoza discloses wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations further including updating and applying the detected current exchange rate during the active ATM session-[0011].
Re-claim 23. Mendoza discloses detecting foreign currency type as in claim 21 above, and Fish teaches wherein the itemization includes the identified currency type and the converted value of the identified foreign currency type based on the detected current exchange rate (itemization and displaying transaction information -see Fig. 5 item 530 and display exchange rate to the consumer through the ATM interface and also foreign currency amount, exchange rate, fees, and native currency amount in [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the automatic processing of foreign currency transactions of Mendoza the ability to display and itemize the identified currency type and converted value of foreign currency type based on detected exchange rate as taught by Fish since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re-claim 24.Steinlin, not Mendoza, discloses wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations further including automatically rejecting the banknote in response to a determination that the banknote is counterfeit or of suspicious origin. (reject counterfeit cash –[0004], [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the automatic processing of foreign currency transactions of Mendoza the ability to automatically reject a banknote in response to a determination that the banknote is counterfeit or of suspicious origin as taught by Steinlin since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 25-28 have similar limitations found in claims 21-24 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as amended, do not recite an abstract idea and integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. The arguments are not persuasive.
The Patent Office has issued guidance about this framework. -See MPEP§ 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020), in particular, Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c). As indicated in the MPEP § 2106, to decide whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim (1) recites one of the abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance (“Prong One”) and (2) fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (“Prong Two”).
Beginning with Prong One, step 2A of the eligibility analysis, we must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. One of the subject matter groupings identified as an abstract idea in the Guidance is “[certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including . . . mitigating risk, insurance); commercial. . . interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; . . . sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including . . . following rules or instructions)].” See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Here, apart from the recited systems, i.e., a user interface (UI); a bank note acceptor; one or more sensors; one or more processors operatively connected to the one or more sensors for control of the one or more sensors; and a non-transitory memory coupled to the one or more processors, the non-transitory memory including a set of instructions of computer-executable program code, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform claim operations, claim 1 recites abstract ideas in the category of “methods of organizing human activity.”
In the 101 analysis in the rejection above, the Examiner identifies and considers each of the underlying steps for the claims as a basis for describing and explaining the recited abstract idea. For example, the Examiner identifies the underlying steps of claim 1 and explains that they describe the concept of facilitating, at an ATM, a deposit of foreign currency into a financial account based on local or native currency that is based on local or native currency which is a commercial interaction. The Examiner’s approach here is consistent with USPTO guidance.
Applicant argues that the claims recite elements or a combination of elements which “integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694