DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2.. An Amendment was filed November 13, 2025 (hereinafter “Amendment”) and has been entered into the record and fully considered. The Amendment was filed in response to a Non-Final Rejection dated August 13, 2025.
Despite the Amendment to the Claims and Applicant’s remarks, the Rejections under §101 and §103 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection are hereby maintained; although, the Rejection under 103 is based on NEW GROUNDS necessitated by the Amendment.
An explanation of the maintained Rejections and a response to Applicant’s arguments are set forth below. Please see the “Conclusion” section of this Action below for important information regarding responding to this Action.
NOTE: interviews are welcome at any stage of prosecution. Please use the AIR form, the link for which can be found at the end of this action, to schedule the interview.
Status of the Claims:
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this Application.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Claims 1 and 15 are substantially similar and were amended in substantially the same way.
Therefore, the following explanation of the maintained rejection under §101 with regard to Claim 1 is considered explanatory of the Rejection as a whole.
Claim 9 is addressed separately below.
The dependent Claims were either not amended or only amended in a trivial manner.
With regard to the Amendment:
Claim 1 was amended as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
536
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
252
858
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 was amended as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
634
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Summary of the Amendment and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation:
Claim terminology is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, consistent with the specification. This is true, unless the terms are given a special meaning. See MPEP §2111.01
Here, no special meaning is detected. As noted in the Amendment, the
changes to Claim 1 relate generally to:
Providing a second transaction at an AMT for a second product (e.g. a loan) based on at least one of:
A number of overdraw events, or
Some undefined pattern of past transactions.
Claim 9 is similar but adds the step of a heightened level of authentication. The second transaction broadly relates to recovering a lost card usable at an ATM and requesting a replacement card ((See at least [0104] – [0117] of the specification and Fig. 8).
These terms appear – subject to further consideration – to be defined in the specification based on their plain and ordinary meaning.
With regard to §101:
Despite the Amendment, it remains clear that a practical application has not been integrated into the abstract idea recited in the Claims and identified in the Non-Final Rejection. Thus, the Amendment does alter the analysis set forth in that Action.
With respect to Claim 1, the added limitations listed above are high level, abstract concepts. There is no specificity added to the Claim. Some undefined number of overdraw events and some pattern of transactions are about as abstract and conceptual as a claim feature can be. No new computerized components are added. No new functionality is recited. No technical solution to a technical problem is reflected in this Amendment. general or generic computers without special programming are very good at counting events or identifying patterns.
Respectfully, the Amendment does not advance prosecution substantially.
The Claim provides no specificity in terms of how the events or pattern is accomplished or what algorithms are used or whether they are special or used or applied in any special way. Only the mere outcome or result of a second product is recited without specifying “how” a technical problem is solved. That is, the solution of a technical problem is not reflected in the Claim.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer elements at each step of the process is purely typical of processing identifiers for authentication purposes. Without greater specificity as to “how” certain functions solve a technical problem, the currently recited limitations can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of the Claim add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer elements nor does the claim reflect how an improvement in any other technology or technical field is achieved. Thus, Claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than instructions to “apply” the abstract idea. Such is not sufficient to integrate a practical application in the abstract idea.
The analysis of Claim 9 is similar. A heightened level of authentication is recited at a high level of generality without additional computer components or specificity regarding special functionality.
Accordingly, the Rejection is maintained.
With regard to §103:
Without admitting that the previous combination of references applies to the Claims, for the avoidance of doubt a new grounds of Rejection under 103 is asserted.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION:
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0089205 to Bayne (hereinafter “Bayne) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,538,041 to Fisi et al. (hereinafter “Fisi”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0043298 to Benkreira et al. (hereinafter “Benkreira”).
With regard to Claim 1, Bayne teaches overdraw events and transaction patterns. (See at least [0008], 90013].) Bayne also teaches transaction patterns. (See at least [0067] – [0068].) Thus, the following teaching from Bayne is particularly applicable:
“[0008] Financial institutions (e.g. banks) offer financial services to customers that include overdraft protection, bounce protection, and overdraft transfer protection to prevent a customer's check from “bouncing” (i.e. being returned unpaid due to insufficient funds “NSF”), or having an ATM cash withdrawal refused, because the selected amount exceeds the account's available cash. These services can provide the difference in funds to successfully complete a check or ATM transaction.” (Emphasis Added)
Although the Amendment adds these two limitations on the basis of “at least one of,” Baynes teaches both. The following is directly on point with a “pattern” of transactions:
“[0067] In an alternative embodiment, the method may qualify a customer for a loan based on the timing of the attempted withdrawal. For example, the method may qualify a customer for a loan, if based on a pattern of regular deposits, the attempted ATM cash withdrawal occurs shortly before the next estimated deposit. In this way, there is less time for checks to be written that may interfere with any loan collection.
[0068] In another embodiment, a customer may qualify for a loan if the difference between the amount selected for withdrawal and the account's available cash is less than a certain amount (e.g. <$40.00) and there is no account history indicating that the customer is a potential credit risk (e.g. no checks returned unpaid in the last year).” (Emphasis Added)
With regard to Claim 9, the new reference to Benkreira is directly on point. It is directed to an ATM that can dispense physical payment cards – such as a “transaction medium” – or, such as a debit card.
The title is: System and method for an automated teller machine to issue a secured bank card
It also teaches a heightened level of authentication to issue such a card:
“[0049] At step 508, ATM 200 receives information necessary to confirm the identity of user 104. In this step, ATM 200 may compare the information provided in steps 504 and 506 with the identity of user 104. By comparing the identity of user 104 with the information submitted at steps 504 and 506, method 500 may reduce instances of fraud and money laundering. In some embodiments, ATM 200 may use biometrics to identify user 104. For example, ATM 200 may use the camera located on user interface 210 to record a photo or video of user 104. In this example, ATM 200 may then compare the photo or video taken from the camera with the scan of user 104's identification. In another example, ATM 200 may transfer the photo or video taken of user 104 to a server associated with a known criminal database to check against existing facial scans. In other embodiments, the biometrics to identify user 104 may include other forms of biometric identification, such as, for example, fingerprinting. In these embodiments, user interface 210 of ATM 200 may be equipped with a fingerprint scanner. ATM 200 may then transfer the fingerprint scan to a server associated with a known criminal database to check against stored fingerprints. In still other embodiments, ATM 200 may require both a photo and fingerprint of user 104 for identification. As explained above, user interface 210 may also include equipment suitable for obtaining other forms of biometric identification information from user 104.” (Emphasis Added)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing the claimed invention to have modified the combined ATM loan processing system of Bayne in view of Fisi, including the heightened security authentication teachings of Fisi, to add the card issuance and heightened, biometric authentication teachings of Benkreira. The motivation to do so comes from Bayne. As quoted above, Bayne teaches that a user must be “qualified” in order to receive a loan at the ATM. It would greatly enhance the efficiency and accuracy and security of the system of Bayne to use the authentication and fraud control teachings of Benkreira.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments set forth in the Remarks section of the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to section 101 rejection, Applicant argues as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
288
860
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The difficulty with this argument is that the “additional instances” mentioned above in the specification are not “reflected” in the Claim. The Claim merely recites heightened security. As explained above, and as discussed in detail in the Non-Final Rejection, to satisfy 101, a technical solution to a technical problem must be “reflected” in the Claim – i.e. “how” is the problem solved as referenced in the claim limitations..
With regard to 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of Rejection.
The Rejections must be maintained.
Conclusion
4. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
A. Finality
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. 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.
Search and Prior Art
The search conducted in connection with this Office Action, as well as any previous Actions, encompassed the inventive concepts as defined in the Applicant’s specification. That is, the search(es) included concepts and features which are defined by the pending claims but also pertinent to significant although unclaimed subject matter. Accordingly, such search(es) were directed to the defined invention as well as the general state of the art, including references which are in the same field of endeavor as the present application as well as related fields (e.g. conducting loan transactions at an ATM). Indeed, there is a plethora of prior art in these fields.
Therefore, in addition to prior art references cited and applied in connection with this and any previous Office Actions, the following prior art is also made of record but not relied upon in the current rejection:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0155370 to Martin et al. This reference relates to the concept of issuing cards from an ATM.
U.S. Patent No. 6,105,009 to Cuervo. This reference relates to the concept of dispensing debit cards.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0078756 to Oberan. This reference relates to the concept of dispensing non-cash items.
B. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
C. Interviews and Compact Prosecution
The Office strongly encourages interviews as an important aspect of compact prosecution. Statistics and studies have shown that prosecution can be greatly advanced by way of interviews. Indeed, in many instances, during the course of one or more interviews, the Examiner and Applicant may reach an agreement on eligible and allowable subject matter that is supported by the specification.
Interviews are especially welcomed by this examiner at any stage of the prosecution process. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool (e.g. TEAMS).
To facilitate the scheduling of an interview, the Examiner requests the use of the AIR form as follows:
USPTO Automated Interview Request http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Other forms of interview requests filed in this application may result in a delay in scheduling the interview because of the time required to appear on the Examiner's docket. Thus, the use of the AIR form is strongly encouraged.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
william.bunker@uspto.gov
(571) 272-0017
January 18, 2026
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 35 USC § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
A. Rejection Based on Abstract Idea
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. Furthermore, this rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
B. Statutory Categories
Independent Claims 1 and 9 are system claims and they recite various hardware components such as an ATM, a memory, and a processor. These Claims therefore fall into the category of machine/manufacture. Claim 15 is a method claim and therefore falls into the category of a “process.”
C. The Claim Recites an Abstract Idea
Claim 1 is illustrative of the rejection of all claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
“receive, via an input device and in a first instance, a first user input from a user of the ATM regarding a first transaction; identify at least: one or more factors associated with the user, and user account data;5”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, constitutes a method of organizing human activity, specifically, fundamental economic principles or practices. That is, analyzing this limitation in the context of the claim as a whole, it recites a process that falls within the grouping of abstract ideas comprising certain methods of organizing human activity. Fundamental economic principles or practices are examples of such methods. In this case, the fundamental economic principle or practice is the common practice of conducting various transactions at an ATM device. ATM’s are used millions of times each day to perform a range of financial transactions relating to the account data of the user or cardholder. the above recited subject matter constitutes a broad and conceptual idea.
Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of terms - such as “processor,” or “memory” - does not remove the claim from the category of common or abstract methods of organizing human activity.
Thus, Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, namely, an abstract idea.
D. The Claim Does Not Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Moreover, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The possible “additional limitations” recited in the Claim that must be considered are as follows:
A system comprising: an automated teller machine (ATM) associated with a provider institution computer system,
the system including at least one first processor and at least one first memory having instructions stored thereon
receive, via an input device and in a first instance, a first user input from a user of the ATM regarding a first transaction;
identify at least: one or more factors associated with the user, and user account data;
in a second instance subsequent to the first instance, provide a second transaction including one or more products, the one or more products determined based on at least the one or more factors associated with the user and the user account data;
cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the ATM to display the one or more products.
No additional computer components are mentioned in these limitations, and those quoted above are recited at a high level of generality. No other particular computer functions or computer component interactions within this system are recited. As noted above, performing transactions at an ATM – even those requiring authentication - are extremely common computer functions. There is no specificity nor special functionality assigned to these steps in the claim.
Analyzing these additional limitations individually, and taking the claim as a whole and as an ordered combination, it is clear that these additional limitations do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not recite a technological solution to a technological problem. They do not improve the functioning of the computer system itself. In fact, there are very few computerized system components or functions recited. Thus, these limitations fail to recite with specificity any technical function or any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself – if any. Therefore, the claim lacks the specificity required to transform the claim from one claiming only an outcome or a result – completing transactions at an ATM - to one claiming a specific way of achieving that outcome or result.
Accordingly, the recitation of these generic components amounts to no more than mere instructions “to apply” the abstract idea exception using generic computer components. That is, the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s) have been evaluated to determine whether those additional elements, considered individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. They do not.
E. Step 2B: The Claim Does Not Recite Significantly More than the Abstract Idea
This step involves the search for an “inventive concept.” However, it is clear from the case law and the MPEP that the considerations at issue are the same as those considered above with respect to the analysis of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a) – (c) and (e). In other words, these analyses sharply overlap.
Therefore, based on the above analysis, the identified additional limitations do not provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea. The claim is therefore ineligible under §101. The other independent claims are, likewise, ineligible for the same reasons as they are virtually identical to Claim 10.
F. The Dependent Claims Do Not Recite Meaningful Additional Limitations
Similarly, Claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as Claim 1 by virtue of its dependency on Claim 1. Like Claim 1, this claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 2 merely recites the abstract concept of a threshold value of the transaction.
Claim 3 merely recites the abstract concept of credit factors of the user.
Claim 4 merely recites the abstract concept of a trigger condition.
Claim 5 merely recites the abstract concept of trigger conditions.
Claim 6 merely recites the abstract concept of risk or credit factors for various products.
Claim 7 merely recites the abstract concept of a credit score.
Claim 8 merely recites the abstract concept of an initial balance.
Claim 9 merely recites the abstract concept of fraud controls on the transaction.
Claim 10 merely recites the abstract concept of a card dispenser at the ATM.
Claim 11 merely recites the abstract concept of a blank transaction card for being dispensed at the ATM.
Claim 12 merely recites the abstract concept of fraud controls.
Claim 13 merely recites the abstract concept of a sensor to determine identity of the user.
Claim 14 merely recites the abstract concept of specific fraud controls.
Claims 15 - 20 are virtually identical to various of the aforementioned claims and are ineligible for the same reasons as set forth above.
None of these claims provide any additional meaningful limitations, non-generic computer components, or specific assignments of functionality among those components. Likewise, if at all, these claims recite only generic, computer-related limitations which are recited at such a high level of generality as to be devoid of any meaningful limitations. These limitations do not recite improvements in the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Therefore, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, constitute only a mere instruction to “apply” the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1 - 20 constitute ineligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0089205 to Bayne (hereinafter “Bayne) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,538,041 to Fisi et al. (hereinafter “Fisi”)
The title of Bayne is: Automated qualifying of a customer to receive a cash loan at an automated teller machine
The Abstract reads as follows:
“An automated system and method for qualifying a customer to receive a cash loan at an ATM, when the customer attempts to withdraw more than the available cash from an account that receives regular deposits, and selecting a fee to charge for overdraft protection on a transactional basis. The fee amount is selected from a range of fees, and is dependent on the amount of overdraft protection provided, as a percentage of the transaction amount..” (emphasis added)
Thus, Bayne is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention – performing a secondary transaction at an ATM. Thus, as explained in the Abstract quoted above, the first transaction is to withdraw cash at the ATM and the second transaction is a small loan to cover the overdraft amount.
The disclosed system of Bayne is illustrated in Fig. 1 as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
638
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As the arrows point out above, the system of Bayne uses credit and customer data to determine is the user is “qualified” for a loan. This feature is described in more detail as follows:
“[[0034] The present invention provides specialized cash loan processing systems and methods for qualifying a customer to receive a cash loan while at an ATM. An ATM may be configured to connect with a cash loan processing system, to provide cash to a customer when the customer attempts to withdraw more cash, than the available cash, from an account that regularly receives deposits. Interest, and other fees may be charged to the customer's account, once the customer accepts the loan terms presented and a cash loan is disbursed from the ATM.
[0035] In accordance with one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a truncated loan process technique that advantageously employs the regularity of deposits made to a customer's account as data to assess the level of financial risk of a particular customer account holder, in determining whether the customer qualifies for a cash loan.” (Emphasis Added)
The system of Bayne considers a variety of factors in determining whether to issue a loan to the user:
“[0051] The CLS 102 may include or be in communication with one or more databases. By way of illustration only, the CLS 102 may be in communication with an ACH 104 for depositing loan proceeds to the customer's bank account, a customer account database 106 that contains customer account information, and a credit reporting agency 105 for supplying a customer's credit score if requested by the CLS 102.
[0052] These and/or other databases may of course also store any other data used or generated by the CLS 102. “ (Emphasis Added)
Therefore, Bayne is directly on point with the claimed invention:
With regard to Claim 1, Bayne teaches:
1. A system comprising: an automated teller machine (ATM) associated with a provider institution computer system, the system including at least one first processor and at least one first memory having instructions stored thereon that when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the at least one first processor to: (See at least Fig. 1 above.)
receive, via an input device and in a first instance, a first user input from a user of the ATM regarding a first transaction; (See at least [0003].)
identify at least: one or more factors associated with the user, and user account data; (See at least [0034] – [0035] and [0051] – [0052] quoted above.)
in a second instance subsequent to the first instance, provide a second transaction including one or more products, the one or more products determined based on at least the one or more factors associated with the user and the user account data; and (See at least [0003] wherein the “cash loan” is the second transaction and the product is based on the credit factors quoted above which are associated with the user’s account data.)
cause a graphical user interface (GUI) of the ATM to display the one or more products. (See at least the interface in the ATM in Fig. 1 and the associated description at [0054] – [0056].)
Therefore, Bayne appears to teach the basic limitations of Claim 1. However, out of an abundance of caution, and subject to further consideration of the cited reference and subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the relevant limitation, Fisi is cited for its teachings relating to authenticating the user – at a heightened level of security - when a second channel is employed to execute a second transaction.
Fisi is in the exact same field of endeavor as Bayne and the claimed invention - executing transactions at an ATM.
The title is: Secondary financial session monitoring across multiple access channels
Fisi teaches as follows in the Abstract:
“An example computing device is programmed to: (a) detect an attempt to secondarily access a user account, the user account being involved in an ongoing primary financial session with a primary device; (b) raise the level of authentication required to secondarily access the user account beyond that which was required to access the account for the primary financial session; (c) when successful authentication at the raised level is achieved, permit secondary access to the user account through a secondary financial session and compare one or more user activities occurring during the secondary financial session to a plurality of fraud profiles; and (d) indicate fraud when comparison of the user activity is consistent with one or more of the plurality of fraud profiles..” (emphasis added)
Fisi teaches that various consumer or customer transactions can be carried out at an ATM:
PNG
media_image6.png
624
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of filing the claimed invention to have modified the ATM loan processing system of Bayne to add the heightened security authentication teachings of Fisi. The motivation to do so comes from Bayne. As quoted above, Bayne teaches that a user must be “qualified” in order to receive a loan at the ATM. It would greatly enhance the efficiency and accuracy and security of the system of Bayne to use the authentication and fraud control teachings of Fisi.
With regard to Claims 2 - 14, Bayne in view of Fisi teaches:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further cause the at least one first processor to: identify that the first transaction involves a first transaction value satisfying a threshold value; determine a hold status of the first transaction; after determining the hold status, generate the one or more products, the one or more products including at least a portion of the first transaction value and having at least one restriction; and perform the second transaction responsive to receiving a second user input. (See at least Bayne: [0040] – [0041] regarding the transaction value wherein the ATM loan relates to a threshold value. In [0043] the customer is notified “graphically” on the ATM interface. The customer can accept the loan or reject the loan – which is a response. [0043] – [0044]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that this process would of necessity put a “hold” on the account of the user.)
3. The system of claim 2, wherein: the hold status of the first transaction is determined based on at least one of the first transaction value, the one or more factors associated with the user, or the user account data; the one or more factors associated with the user include at least one of a user credit score, a user transaction history, or a user income; the user account data includes at least one of an account balance, an account age, a previous account activity, an account status, or an account identifier; the one or more products includes a microloan having a balance and defining a product structure; the at least one restriction includes an interest rate; wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further cause the at least one first processor to: determine a fee associated with the second transaction; at least one of: responsive to processing the first transaction and receiving the first transaction value, waiving at least a portion of the fee, or responsive to processing the first transaction and not receiving the first transaction value, charging at least a portion of the fee to an account of the user. (See at least [0051] relating to a credit score and [0040] – [0041] relating to a transaction value.)
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further cause the at least one first processor to: identify that at least one of the one or more factors associated with the user or the user account data comprises a trigger condition; responsive to identifying the trigger condition, generate the one or more products in the second instance, the one or more products having a balance, at least one restriction, and defining a product structure; perform the second transaction responsive to receiving a second user input; and wherein at least one of the balance, the at least one restriction, or the product structure is generated based on at least the one or more factors associated with the user or the user account data. (See at least [0003] wherein the trigger condition is attempting to withdraw more than the user has in the account. See also [0081].)
5. The system of claim 4, wherein: the trigger condition includes at least one of: an account value satisfying a threshold account value, a number of account overdraw events exceeding a predefined number of account overdraw events, or a transaction pattern associated with the user corresponding to a predefined transaction pattern; the one or more factors associated with the user include at least one of a user credit score, a user transaction history, or a user income; the user account data includes at least one of an account balance, an account age, a previous account activity, an account status, or an account identifier; the one or more products includes a microloan; and the at least one restriction includes an interest rate. (See at least [0040] – [0041] and [0051]. As to fees and an interest rate, see [0043].)
6. The system of claim 1, further comprising: the provider institution computer system, the provider institution computer system comprising at least one second processor and at least one second memory having second instructions stored thereon that when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the at least one second processor to: identify, prior to the first instance, the one or more factors associated with the user and the user account data; generate, prior to the first instance, the one or more products based on the one or more factors associated with the user and the user account data, the one or more products each having at least an initial balance and an initial restriction; wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further cause the at least one first processor to: after receiving the first user input regarding the first transaction, receive, from the provider institution computer system, the one or more products; and perform the second transaction responsive to receiving a second user input. (See at least [0037] and [0041] and [0079] as to an account balance. The specification makes it clear that a “restriction” comprises at least an interest rate. Therefore, see [0043].)
7. The system of claim 6, wherein: the one or more factors associated with the user include at least one of a user credit score, a user transaction history, or a user income; the user account data includes at least one of an account balance, an account age, previous account activity, an account status, or an account identifier; the one or more products includes a microloan; and the initial restriction includes an interest rate. (See at least Fig. 1 and especially the customer account database and credit reporting data. See also [0056].)
8. The system of claim 6, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further cause the at least one first processor to: determine, based on the one or more factors associated with the user and the user account data after the first instance, a validity of at least one of the initial balance or the initial restriction; and in response to determining that at least one of the initial balance or the initial restriction is invalid, generate, based on the one or more factors associated with the user and the user account data in the second instance, at least one of an updated balance or an updated restriction. (See at least [0035] wherein “financial risk” is considered to constitute the recited term “invalidity.”)
9. A system comprising: an automated teller machine (ATM) associated with a provider institution computer system, the system including a storage repository configured to store at least one non-monetary media, a card preparation apparatus configured to convert the at least one non-monetary media into a transaction media for a user of the ATM, and at least one first processor and at least one first memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the at least one first processor to: receive, via an input device, a first user input indicating that a transaction medium is compromised; receive, at the ATM, a request to recover the transaction medium; responsive to receiving the request to recover the transaction medium, activate one or more ATM fraud controls; provide a notification indicative of the one or more ATM fraud controls; and responsive to authenticating the user of the ATM, provide, at the ATM, an additional transaction medium. (See at least [0035] wherein “financial risk” is considered to constitute the recited term “fraud controls.” See also Fisi: Abstract)
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further cause the at least one first processor to: cause the card preparation apparatus to receive the at least one non-monetary media from the storage repository after receiving the first user input; cause the card preparation apparatus to convert the at least one non-monetary media to the additional transaction medium; and provide, via a media aperture of the ATM, the additional transaction medium to the user. (See at least [0047] wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that an ATM that dispenses cash can dispense other monetary items – or items that represent money – such as cards.
See also Fisi which teaches:
“The various user activities that can occur during a financial session include, but are not limited to (see FIG. 4B): (a) monetary withdrawals 418a; (b) monetary deposits 418b; (c) monetary transfer to internal user account 418c; (d) monetary transfer to internal non-user account 418d; (e) monetary transfer to external account 418e; (f) loan request 418f; (g) check printing request 418g; (h) new credit/debit card request 418h; (i) re-issue of existing debit/credit card request 418i;” (Emphasis Added)
11. The system of claim 10, the instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further cause the at least one first processor to: authenticate, prior to providing the additional transaction medium to the user, an identity of the user; and wherein: the at least one non-monetary media includes a blank transaction card; the card preparation apparatus is configured to convert the blank transaction card to a transaction card associated with an account of the user; the additional transaction medium is the transaction card associated with the account of the user; and the identity of the user is authenticated via a push notification to a mobile device, a biometric, a personal identification number, a passcode, a username and password combination, a token, a barcode, or a quick response (QR) code. (See at least [0047] wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that an ATM that dispenses cash can dispense other monetary items – or items that represent money – such as cards. See also [0076] regarding the ability to dispense the loan terms.)
12. The system of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further cause the at least one first processor to: receive a second input associated with a first transaction at the ATM; detect an indication of fraud associated with the first transaction; responsive to detecting the indication of fraud, activate the one or more ATM fraud controls; and after providing the notification indicative of the one or more ATM fraud controls, either allow or prohibit the first transaction. (See at least Fisi: Background and Summary)
13. The system of claim 12, further comprising: a sensor coupled to the ATM, the sensor configured to collect data indicative of an identity of an individual associated with the first transaction; wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further cause the at least one first processor to: collect, via the sensor, the data indicative of the identity of the individual associated with the first transaction; send, based on the data indicative of the identity the individual associated with the first transaction, a notification indicative of a security status of the first transaction; and wherein the data indicative of the identity of the individual associated with the first transaction comprises at least one of a biometric, an anomaly in a transaction pattern of the user, a photo of the individual, or a voice sample of the individual. (See at least Fisi as follows:
“Physical object authentication 616b requires the user attempting to log into a secondary session to attach to their device, or otherwise provide their device with access to, a physical object such as a USB (universal serial bus) stick with a secret token, financial card/credit card, key, etc. Physical characteristic authentication 616c requires the user attempting to a log into a secondary session to transmit through their device a biometric characteristic such as a fingerprint, eye iris, voice, typing speed, pattern in key press intervals, etc. Text message authentication 616d requires the user attempting to log into a secondary session to enter server-generated code into their device, wherein the code is sent via text, upon the login attempt, to an established account owner text address/number stored in the account owner preference database 602. E-mail message authentication 616e operates similar to text message authentication 616d with server-generated code being sent via e-mail to an established account owner e-mail address.” (Emphasis Added)
Such biometric data of necessity requires sensors to supply the data input.
14. The system of claim 12, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further cause the at least one first processor to: receive a third input associated with a setting of the one or more ATM fraud controls; implement the setting of the one or more ATM fraud controls; and wherein the setting of the one or more ATM fraud controls includes an activation, a deactivation, a transaction time designation, a transaction location designation, a transaction amount designation, a biometric designation, an ATM designation, or an alert designation. (See at least Fisi as follows:
“The system and method include software and hardware enabling detection of concurrent and/or proximate secondary access to a user account. In detecting the secondary access to the user account, the system and method are able raise authentication levels required for secondary access to the user account in accordance with account owner preference. Further, if authentication for secondary access is successful, the system and method are able to monitor and analyze user activities occurring during the secondary financial session to determine the presence or possibility of fraud in the activity, and, subsequently, terminate or otherwise deal with the fraud according to account owner preference.” (Emphasis Added)
With regard to Claim 15, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 1 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 16, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 4 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 17, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 5 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 18, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 6 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 19, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 9 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
With regard to Claim 20, this claim is essentially identical to Claim 10 and is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to that claim.
Conclusion
5. Applicant should carefully consider the following in connection with this Office Action:
B. Responding to this Office Action
In view of the foregoing explanation of the scope of searches conducted in connection with the examination of this application, in preparing any response to this Action, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the entire disclosures of the above-cited, unapplied references, as well as any previously cited references. It is likely that one or more such references disclose or suggest features which Applicant may seek to claim. Moreover, for the same reasons, Applicant is encouraged to review the entire disclosures of the references applied in the foregoing rejections and not just the sections mentioned.
D. Communicating with the Office
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BUNKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0017. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:30AM - 5:30PM, Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached at 571-270-1836. Information regarding the status of an application, whether published or unpublished, may be obtained from the “Patent Center” system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/William (Bill) Bunker/
U.S. Patent Examiner
AU 3691
william.bunker@uspto.gov
(571) 272-0017
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights