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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amended claims filed on 05/13/2026.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant agues 35 U.S.C. § 101 starting on page 10 of the response. Applicant argues the “application describes that the features of the pending claims relate to "a technical solution of providing, using an artificial intelligence model, predicted transactions via a user's mobile device and presenting an option to cast the transaction from the user's mobile device to the ATM.” (response at 11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the present claims are drawn to predicting and performing transactions, which falls into fundamental economic practice. The casting of the transaction from the user’s device to the AT amounts to receiving and transmitting data which is mere instruction to apply the exception to a computer environment.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C § 101 are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/13/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1, 10 and 17 are directed to a system, method, and system.
For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 10 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents a “predicting a transaction” which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 10 recites:
A method comprising:
training, by a provider computing system for a user corresponding to a user device, an artificial intelligence (Al) model to determine at least one predicted transaction of the user using transaction data related to a plurality of transactions of the user with one or more automated teller machines (ATMs) associated with the provider computing system;
receiving, by the provider computing system and via a communication interface from the user device, data indicative of a location of the user device;
determining, by the provider computing system and based on the data indicative of the location of the user device, a corresponding location of an ATM;
determining, by the provider computing system using the Al model, a predicted transaction of the user at the ATM responsive to determining that a proximity between the location of the user device and the corresponding location of the ATM satisfies a threshold criteria;
transmitting, by the provider computing system via the communication interface, a first subset of information corresponding to the predicted transaction to the user device thereby causing the user device to display one or more graphical user interfaces configured to receive a plurality of transaction parameters to pre-stage a transaction corresponding to the predicted transaction, the one or more graphical user interfaces including a first interface element to cast the pre-staged transaction to the ATM and a second interface element to confirm the pre-staged transaction, wherein transmitting the first subset of information causes the user device to automatically populate the plurality of transaction parameters based on the predicted transaction;
receiving, by the provider computing system and via the communication interface from the user device, a second subset of information associated with the user provided via the one or more graphical user interfaces;
casting, by the provider computing system, the one or more graphical user interfaces displayed on the user device to the ATM based on a selection of the first interface element;
redacting, by the provider computing system, at least a portion of the second subset of information included in the one or more graphical user interfaces cast from the user device to the ATM prior to being displayed on the ATM; and
performing, by the provider computing system responsive to a signal from the ATM indicating selection of the second interface element, the pre-staged transaction.
The additional elements of claim 10 such as “training, by a provider computing system for a user corresponding to a user device, an artificial intelligence (AI) model to … with one or more automated teller machines (ATMs) associated with the provider computing system”, “determining, by the provider computing system and based on the data indicative of the location of the user device, a corresponding location of an ATM”, “… by the provider computing system using the AI model…user device…”, “…by the provider computing system via the communication interface…the user device…ATM…”, “receiving, by the provider computing system and via the communication interface from the user device, a second subset of information associated with the user provided via the one or more graphical user interfaces;”, “casting, by the provider computing system, the one or more graphical user interfaces displayed on the user device to the ATM based on a selection of the first interface element;” “redacting, by the provider computing system, information included in the one or more graphical user interfaces cast from the user device to the ATM”, “…by the provider computing system responsive to a signal from the ATM indicating selection of the interface element…” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Furthermore, “training, by a provider computing system for a user corresponding to a user device, an artificial intelligence (AI) model to … with one or more automated teller machines (ATMs) associated with the provider computing system” lacks detail on how “training… artificial intelligence (AI) model” is accomplished, therefore it amounts to no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Additionally, “receiving, by the provider computing system and via a communication” represent the use of computer functions to perform an economic task of “predicting a transaction” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of “predicting a transaction”, Hence, claims 1, 10 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of “establish a wireless connection between the ATM and the user device”, “authenticate the user of the user device”, “wherein the transaction data is received responsive to establishing the wireless connection and authenticating the user” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. As a result, it is no more than apply it. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of “transmit, to the user device, a prompt for authentication information in response to establishing the wireless connection”, “receive, from the user device, the authentication information in response to the prompt”, “transmit the authentication information to the provider computing system for authenticating the user of the user device”, “and receive, from the provider computing system, an indication of successful authentication of the user of the user device based on the authentication information.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of “receive, from the ATM, the authentication information and data corresponding to the user device”, “authenticate the user of the user device based on a comparison of the authentication information received from the ATM to a profile linked to the data corresponding to the user device” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. As a result, it is no more than apply it. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of “wherein the transaction data used to train the AI model comprises information related to, for a plurality of previous transactions between the user and the one or more ATMs, a transaction frequency, a transaction location, one or more denominations, and a currency type.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the predicted transaction of the user at the … is determined based on a time period between a previous instance of the predicted transaction and a current time and a frequency of a plurality of previous instances of the predicted transaction, wherein the frequency of the plurality of previous instances of the predicted transaction is determined based on a transaction history associated with the user.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…ATM…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 7 recites “identify a transaction type of the predicted transaction”, “determine, from the …, a subset of …s configured to perform transactions of the transaction type”, “select the … from the subset of … based on a distance between the location of … and the corresponding location of the ….” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…one or more ATMs …”, “…user device…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “transmit the corresponding location of the ATM to the user device.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. As a result, it is no more than apply it. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the transaction data corresponds to at least one of the predicted transaction or a transaction which is different from the predicted transaction.”, However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of “transmitting by the provider computing system via the communication interface, a prompt for authentication information to the user device”, “receiving, by the provider computing system via the communication interface from the user device, the authentication information and data corresponding to the user device”, “transmit the authentication information to the provider computing system for authenticating the user of the user device”, “and receive, from the provider computing system, an indication of successful authentication of the user of the user device based on the authentication information.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of “wherein the transaction data used to train the AI model comprises information related to, for a plurality of previous transactions between the user and the one or more ATMs, a transaction frequency, a transaction location, one or more denominations, and a currency type.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the predicted transaction of the user at the … is determined based on a time period between a previous instance of the predicted transaction and a current time and a frequency of a plurality of previous instances of the predicted transaction, wherein the frequency of the plurality of previous instances of the predicted transaction is determined based on a transaction history associated with the user.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…ATM…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 14 recites “identifying … a transaction type of the predicted transaction”, “determining…, a subset of … configured to perform transactions of the transaction type”, “selecting … the … from the subset of … based on a distance between the location of … and the corresponding location of the ….” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…by the provider computing system…”, “…one or more ATMs …”, “…user device…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of “transmitting, by the provider computing system via the communication interface, the corresponding location of the ATM to the user device to direct the user of the user device to the ATM selected.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. As a result, it is no more than apply it. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the transaction data corresponds to at least one of the predicted transaction or a transaction which is different from the predicted transaction.”, However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites the additional elements of “transmit, via the communication interface, a prompt for authentication information to the user device”, “receive, via the communication interface from the user device, the authentication information and data corresponding to the user device”, “authenticate the user of the user device based on a comparison of the authentication information to a profile associated with the user device.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 19 recites “identify a transaction type of the predicted transaction;”, “determine a subset of … configured to perform transactions of the transaction type”, “select … the … from the subset of … based on a distance between the location of … and the corresponding location of the ….” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…by the provider computing system…”, “…one or more ATMs …”, “…user device…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 20 recites the additional elements of “transmit, via the communication interface, the corresponding location of the ATM to the user device to direct the user of the user device to the ATM selected.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. As a result, it is no more than apply it. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
The prior art does not specifically teach or render obvious:
transmitting, by the provider computing system via the communication interface, a first subset of information corresponding to the predicted transaction to the user device thereby causing the user device to display one or more graphical user interfaces configured to receive a plurality of transaction parameters to pre-stage a transaction corresponding to the predicted transaction, the one or more graphical user interfaces including a first interface element to cast the pre-staged transaction to the ATM and a second interface element to confirm the pre-staged transaction, wherein transmitting the first subset of information causes the user device to automatically populate the plurality of transaction parameters based on the predicted transaction;
receiving, by the provider computing system and via the communication interface from the user device, a second subset of information associated with the user provided via the one or more graphical user interfaces;
casting, by the provider computing system, the one or more graphical user interfaces displayed on the user device to the ATM based on a selection of the first interface element;
redacting, by the provider computing system, at least a portion of the second subset of information included in the one or more graphical user interfaces cast from the user device to the ATM prior to being displayed on the ATM.
Benkreira et al. (US 11,030,624 B2) Teaches: Techniques to preform computational analysis of transactions information for automatic teller machines.
Sloane et al. (US 11,429,972 B2) Teaches: Edge-node touchless authentication architecture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights