DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed January 14, 2026 in which claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claim 17 is added. Thus, claims 1-17 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Independent claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, in the limitation beginning with “a non-transitory computer readable storage…”, the line ends with “that that”. The second “that” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 9, in the limitation beginning with “based on the triggered event…”, in the 4th line from the bottom of the claim, “firs customer record” should be replaced with “first” customer record. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent Claim 9 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 1 and 11.
The claims 1-17 are directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 9 recites : a non-transitory computer readable storage configured to store a database that that includes a plurality of customer records and a plurality of account records, wherein each of the plurality of customer records are associated with at least one of the plurality of account records, and each of the plurality of account records are associated with one customer record; and a memory that is coupled to at least one hardware processor that is configured to perform operations comprising: processing a plurality of transaction objects, each one of the plurality of transaction objects including a plurality of data fields with values for a corresponding crypto currency transaction processed using a corresponding one of the plurality of kiosk terminals, the plurality of data fields including at least 1) a reference to one of the plurality of account records, 2) an amount value, and 3) a kiosk identifier for the corresponding one of the plurality of kiosks used for the transaction; in connection with processing the plurality of transaction objects, executing a transaction monitoring service that includes, for each subject transaction object: determining a first account record of the plurality of account records that is associated the subject transaction object, based on the first account record, determining a first customer record that is associated with the determined first account record, selecting, from the plurality of transaction objects, one or more additional transaction objects to associate with the subject transaction object, wherein the additional one or more additional transaction objects are selected based on having the same date as the subject transaction object, and being associated with the determined first customer record, aggregating amount in / amount out fields for each of the subject transaction object and the one or more additional transaction objects transactions, based on determination that the aggregated amount exceeds a threshold, triggering an event; based on the triggered event, automatically generating a new CTR object, which is a data structure that is internal to the computer system, the new CTR object that includes including (1) the aggregated amount in and amount out, (2) date information, (3) branch data that is based on the kiosk(s) for which the subject transaction and the one or more additional transaction objects transactions-occurred, wherein those included transactions that were performed at the same kiosk terminal are grouped under the same branch, and (4) subject data that includes at least one name that is based on the determined first account record account and/or the determined first customer record customer-associated with the subject transaction and/or the additional transactions; generating and submitting, based on the CTR object to a remote computer server, a currency transaction report that is at least based on the CTR object. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as Fundamental economic principles or practices and Commercial or legal interactions. Generating alert objects while processing the transactions is a way of mitigating a risk and mitigating a risk is a Fundamental Economic Practice. Processing a transaction is fulfilling the agreement in the form of contracts and hence it is a Commercial Interaction. The claim also recites the non-transitory computer readable storage, a database, a memory, a hardware processor, kiosk terminals, a kiosk terminal and a remote computer server which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, the non-transitory computer readable storage, a database, a memory, a hardware processor, kiosk terminals, a kiosk terminal and a remote computer server, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 9 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the non-transitory computer readable storage, a database, a memory, a hardware processor, kiosk terminals, a kiosk terminal and a remote computer server, result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of the non-transitory computer readable storage, a database, a memory, a hardware processor, kiosk terminals, a kiosk terminal and a remote computer server, to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, [0072], [00268]). Hence, the additional elements in the claim are generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of the non-transitory computer readable storage, a database, a memory, a hardware processor, kiosk terminals, a kiosk terminal and a remote computer server, are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the non-transitory computer readable storage, a database, a memory, a hardware processor, kiosk terminals, a kiosk terminal and a remote computer server, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can he extended to other independent claims 1 and 11 and hence the claims 1 and 11 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 9. In addition, Claim 1 also recites a GUI and Claim 11 also recites a computer server system and a processor, which amounts to generic computer implementation.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10 and 12-17 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2-8, 10 and 12-17 do not recite any new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1, 9 and 11.
Viewing the claim limitations as a combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-17 are ineligible.
No Prior Art Rejections
3. Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 1-17. While some individual features of claims 1-17 may be shown in the prior art of record, no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 1-17. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are :
1) Rose (US 10,911,463 B1) – This invention relates generally to terminals, and more specifically, to security and management of a distributed network of terminals using methods such as, for example, operator controls/graphical user interfaces (GUIs), biometric authentication and decentralized learning. Terminals may, in one example, be hardware terminals such as vending machine networks or kiosk networks.
2) Adham (US 11,157,887 B1) - This invention relates generally to financial transactions, and more particularly, to systems and methods for providing a transaction kiosk for automated blockchain-based financial transactions. First, the system provides an authentication interface for display at a network-enabled transaction kiosk. A user is authenticated at the kiosk via the authentication interface, and based on that authentication, the system detects a payment application and a payment request corresponding to the user, wherein the payment application is associated with a service provider and the payment request was created with the payment application. Next, the system identifies a user interface scheme associated with the payment application, and then updates the user interface for display at the transaction kiosk to match the user interface scheme, then initiates a blockchain payment based on the payment request.
3) Ans (US 2020/0111072 A1) – The current subject matter provides techniques for transacting with a kiosk. A user activates a remoting feature of a kiosk. A kiosk agent on the kiosk directly or indirectly causes a link to be sent to a mobile device of the user. The link when activated on the mobile device providing an interface for transacting with the kiosk from the mobile device.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed dated 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
5. With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong two (on pages 08-10), Applicant states that, “the claims integrate any otherwise judicially excepted subject matter into a practical application, the claims are therefore not "directed to" patent ineligible subject matter.”
Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The limitations of the amended claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea.
The claims are merely directed to generating suspicious activity report which is a way of mitigating a risk and mitigating a risk is a Fundamental Economic practice. Every step in a claim either recites a commercial interaction or Fundamental Economic Practice or a mental process. Suspected activity is not a technical problem, it is a business or a commercial problem. Generating a suspicious activity report is not a technical solution, but a business solution or legal solution. All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in abstract idea. The additional elements of the non-transitory computer readable storage, a database, a memory, a hardware processor, kiosk terminals, a kiosk terminal and a remote computer server result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of the non-transitory computer readable storage, a database, a memory, a hardware processor, kiosk terminals, a kiosk terminal and a remote computer server to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, [0072], [00268]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claim 1 as a whole is not integrated into a practical application.
6. Applicant further argues that (page 9) the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Enfish.
The Examiner also does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of Enfish. In Enfish, the claims describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, in both method claims and system claims. The focus of the claims in Enfish is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database). Specifically, the claimed invention in Enfish achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Hence the Enfish claims were not directed to an abstract idea. On the other hand, the Applicant’s claims do not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The invention in Enfish was a technological solution to a technological problem (using self-referential table for a computer database rather than using conventional table for a computer database). Whereas the Applicant’s invention is a business solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea. The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Thus, Enfish is not applicable.
7. Applicant further argues that (page 15), “Like the claims in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., which recited specific rules for automating a previously manual process, claim 1 recites specific criteria (temporal and customer-record association) for automated detection and specific techniques for automated narrative generation.”
The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and those of McRo (McRo, Inc. v. BandaiNamco Games Am., 2015-1080 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)). In McRo, the patents relate to “automating part of existing 3D animations of a character’s facial expressions and synchronize those expressions to the actual speech”, which were to be done manually before the issuance of the patent. The claims were directed to a patentable technological improvement over the existing, manual 3D animation techniques by using “limited complex set of rules specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result” thus providing "unconventional" practices than used in a conventional industry practice. Hence the claims in McRo were patent eligible because they recited significantly more than an abstract idea. Whereas the Applicants’ invention is a business solution, using computers, to a problem rooted in an abstract idea. In McRo, the application of the limited complex set of rules resulted in an improvement of the 3D animation technology. By relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions is not an inventive concept). Looking at the amended limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Hence, the arguments are not persuasive.
Independent claim 9 :
Applicant states that, “the claims integrate any otherwise judicially excepted subject matter into a practical application, the claims are therefore not "directed to" patent ineligible subject matter.”
Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The limitations of the amended claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea.
The claims are merely directed to generating suspicious activity report which is a way of mitigating a risk and mitigating a risk is a Fundamental Economic practice. Every step in a claim either recites a commercial interaction or Fundamental Economic Practice or a mental process. Generating a Currency Transaction report (CTR) is a commercial activity, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in abstract idea. The additional elements of the non-transitory computer readable storage, a database, a memory, a hardware processor, kiosk terminals, a kiosk terminal and a remote computer server result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of the non-transitory computer readable storage, a database, a memory, a hardware processor, kiosk terminals, a kiosk terminal and a remote computer server to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, [0072], [00268]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claim 9 as a whole is not integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 11 :
Applicant states that, “claim 11 is at least not "directed to" patent ineligible subject matter under Step 1 of Alice test. It integrates any otherwise judicially excepted subject matter into a practical application because the specifically claimed subject matter provides for improved cryptocurrency kiosk transaction processing through an graphical interface that handles insufficient deposits.”
Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The limitations of the amended claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea.
The claims are merely directed to generating suspicious activity report which is a way of mitigating a risk and mitigating a risk is a Fundamental Economic practice. Every step in a claim either recites a commercial interaction or Fundamental Economic Practice or a mental process. A graphical user interface is simply a display mechanism and does not improve the functioning of the computer. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (MPEP 2106.05(a) II). See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, ’556 patent at 2:26-39, not on improving computers or technology.”).
All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in abstract idea. The additional elements of the non-transitory computer readable storage, a database, a memory, a hardware processor, kiosk terminals, a kiosk terminal and a remote computer server result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of the non-transitory computer readable storage, a database, a memory, GUI, a hardware processor, kiosk terminals, a kiosk terminal and a remote computer server to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, [0072], [00268]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Hence, the claim 11 as a whole is not integrated into a practical application.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Examiner Request
8. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
March 04, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694