DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in reply to the Request for Reconsideration dated November 7, 2025.
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 1-3, 12-15, and 17-19 have been amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
4. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Terminal Disclaimer
5. Examiner asserts that a Terminal Disclaimer is warranted due to the instant application 18/756,072 and US Patent 12,056,674 (formerly Application 17/502,240) share the same inventive entity and claim language which would otherwise result in a double patenting rejection.
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
6. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope.
Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
In the instant case, the following italicized limitations are expressing the intended use or result of a process step positively recited and are not given additional weight.
As in Claim 1:
determining, by the computer device, that the personal identification number is a disablement personal identification number that is associated with an account, the account having an activation personal identification number, the disablement personal identification number and the activation personal identification number being different, the disablement personal identification number being configured to allow a user of the account to select a user device being disabled when the disablement personal identification number is received,
accessing, by the computer device and as a result of receiving the disablement personal identification number, a disablement pin database to determine at least one disablement action and an alert rule associated with the disablement personal identification number;
determining, by the computer device and based on information within the disablement pin database, the at least one disablement action to be performed by the user device, wherein the at least one disablement action includes at least one of disabling the user device by preventing use of the user device by an unauthorized user, encrypting data on the user device, deleting data on the user device, and immobilizing the user device;
activating, by the computer device, a pervasive global positioning system (GPS) on an accessing device used during the cardless ATM operation with the ATM so that in response to the accessing device being turned off, the accessing device sends location information,
As in Claim 13:
determine that a personal identification number is a disablement personal identification number that is associated with an account, the account having an activation personal identification number, the disablement personal identification number and the activation personal identification number being different, the disablement personal identification number being configured to allow a user of the account to select a user device being disabled when the disablement personal identification number is received;
access, as a result of receiving the disablement personal identification number, a disablement pin database to determine at least one disablement action and an alert rule associated with the disablement personal identification number;
determine, based on information within the accessed disablement pin database, the at least one disablement action to be performed by the user device of a plurality of devices, wherein the at least one disablement action includes at least one of disabling the user device by preventing use of the user device by an unauthorized user, encrypting data on the user device, deleting data on the user device, and immobilizing the user device, and the user device is associated with a user of the disablement personal identification number;
activate a pervasive global positioning system (GPS) on an accessing device used during the cardless ATM operation with the ATM so that in response to the accessing device being turned off, the accessing device sends location information,
As in Claim 17:
determine that a personal identification number is a disablement personal identification number that is associated with an account, the account having an activation personal identification number, the disablement personal identification number and the activation personal identification number being different, the disablement personal identification number being configured to allow a user of the account to select a user device being disabled when the disablement personal identification number is received;
access, as a result of receiving the disablement personal identification number, a disablement pin database to determine at least one disablement action and an alert rule associated with the disablement personal identification number;
determine, based on information within the accessed disablement pin database, the at least one disablement action to be performed by the user device, wherein the at least one disablement action includes disabling the user device by preventing use of the user device by an unauthorized user by executing a physical action allowed by hardware of the user device;
transmit an alert message to another device of a plurality of devices indicating that the disablement personal identification number has been used and activation of a pervasive global positioning system (GPS) on an accessing device used during the cardless ATM operation with the ATM, so even when the accessing device is turned off, the accessing device sends location information;
In each instance, the intended use of the disablement personal identification number, the configuration of the disablement PIN appears to be occurring outside of the process claimed. The steps surrounding the ability to allow a user to configure the disablement PIN, according the specification is occurring via a security module that includes a disablement PIN configuration module, neither which are claimed. (See Applicant Specification paras 63-64 & Fig. 4) At best the instant claims are receiving a disablement PIN and somehow comparing stored data to determine what action the computer device transmits and will be treated as such for purposes of examination.
As in Claim 2:
wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting the command over a wireless network.
As in Claim 4:
wherein the activation personal identification number authorizes withdrawal of cash from the account at the ATM
As in Claim 6 and similarly in Claim 16:
wherein the at least one disablement action is disablement of a smart phone used to access the ATM. Here, the disablement action is never performed as claimed, thus this is still intended use language.
As in Claim 7:
wherein the disablement action is disablement of a smart watch. Here, the disablement action is never performed as claimed, thus this is still intended use language.
As in Claim 8:
wherein the disablement action is deletion of data on the device other than the ATM. Here, the disablement action is never performed as claimed, thus this is still intended use language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As amended, Claim 1 now starts with “performing, by a computing device, a cardless automated teller machine (ATM) operation with an ATM”. This has introduced another device to the recitations. The following recitations refer to “the computer device”, which does not have proper antecedent basis as currently claimed. The computing device is not recited again in the claim. Examiner assumes that Applicant intended for the claim to recite “a computer device” and did not intend to introduce an additional device into the claim, however appropriate clarification and correction is required. Claims 2-12 are further rejected as based on a rejected base claim.
As currently amended, Claim 1 recites in part “activating, by the computing device, a pervasive global positioning system (GPS) on an accessing device used during the cardless ATM operation with the ATM so that in response to the accessing device being turned off, the accessing device sends location information”.
It is unclear what Applicant is intending the import of this limitation to be. It appears, in context, that the method of Claim 1 only would involve activating by the computer device, a pervasive global positioning system (GPS) on an accessing device used during the cardless ATM operation with the ATM. The further recitation of “…so that in response to the accessing device being turned off, the accessing device sends location information” may not occur at all. There is no recitation of the accessing device being turned off or of sending location information. At present, it is unclear what Applicant intends to substantively add to the claim with the further recitation. Clarification and correction is requested. Claims 13 and 17 recite a substantially similar limitation which is being similarly rejected.
Claim 2, as amended, now recites “further comprising receiving, by the computing device of a financial institution via the ATM, the personal identification number that is associated with the account being accessed by the accessing device and during the cardless ATM operation with the ATM, wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting the command over a wireless network”. As currently recited, it is unclear if the “transmitting” is intended to refer back to the command to a disablement API or if this is referring to the transmission of the PIN in the instant claim. Substantially similar claim 14 has a substantially similar issue that is similarly rejected.
Claim 2 refers to “the computing device of a financial institution via the ATM”, perhaps harkening back to “a computing device” of the independent claim, however the further recitations are as to “the computer device”. It is unclear if these are related to the same element or if Applicant is intending to recite an additional element (as noted above), appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Applicant has identified the user device as corresponding to element 442 in FIG. 4 and the accessing device corresponding element 447 in FIG. 4. (See Applicant’s Arguments dated 11/07/2025, page 10) Element 442 is depicted as a smart phone, while element 447 is depicted as a smart watch. (See Figure 4).
In Claim 9, Applicant recites “wherein the user device is an automobile that executes a physical action to disable the automobile”. As explained by Applicant and Figure 4, the user device has been identified as a smart phone. The user device thus cannot be an automobile as recited in Claim 9 and therefore it is still unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim. This is also violative of 112(d), seen below.
Claim 17 recites in part “determine, based on information within the accessed disablement pin database, the at least one disablement action to be performed by the user device, wherein the at least one disablement action includes disabling the user device by preventing use of the user device by an unauthorized user by executing a physical action allowed by hardware of the user device;
These claimed elements do not make sense as claimed. In this claim, Applicant indicates executing a physical action allowed by hardware of the user device. There is only one indication of a system executing a physical action in the specification, which is as to a vehicle API. (See Applicant Spec para 73)
As noted above, Applicant, by their Response, has identified the user device to correspond to element 442, which is a smart phone. The user device cannot be an automobile as noted as a physical action if the user device has been already identified as a smart phone. It is thus unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim with this variation on an independent claim.
As amended, the independent claims rely on the step of performing, by a computing device, a cardless ATM operation with an ATM to start the method (as seen in Claim 1 and substantially similarly in Claims 13 and 17).
The determination step that follows is discussing a PIN that has not been entered or used and attributing actions that can be done by the computing device to an action that has not occurred. The interaction between the user that is performing the cardless ATM transaction and the computer device is not presented and has resulted in a claim that does not present a process that makes sense. The accessing device is not utilized in the claim until the last limitation and even then, it is not an active use of the accessing device, rather the claim notes that it was used during the cardless ATM operation, then recites “so that in response to the accessing device being turned off, the accessing device sends location information….”. There is no recitation of the accessing device being actively turned off or disabled, and it is unclear if this step even occurs.
Applicant is requested to clarify and amend the claims to present a cogent process clarifying the claim limitations. Dependent Claims 2-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are further rejected as based on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
8. Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the user device is an automobile that executes a physical action to disable the automobile”. By Applicant’s Response, they have defined the user device recited in the claims as a smart phone, thus the user device as recited in Claim 9 fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites performing an operation with an ATM; determining that a personal identification number is a disablement personal identification number that is associated with an account, the account having an activation personal identification number, the disablement personal identification number and the activation personal identification number being different, the disablement personal identification number being configured to allow a user of the account to select the disablement when the disablement personal identification number is received; as a result of receiving the disablement personal identification number, to determine at least one disablement action and an alert rule associated with the disablement personal identification number; determining at least one disablement action to be performed, wherein the at least one disablement action includes at least one of disabling by preventing use by an unauthorized user, encrypting data, deleting data and immobilizing; transmitting a command to perform the at least one disablement action; transmitting an alert message indicating that the disablement personal identification number has been used; wherein the personal identification number is associated with an account being accessed.
Independent Claim 13 recites perform an operation with an ATM; determine that a personal identification number is a disablement personal identification number that is associated with an account, the account having an activation personal identification number, the disablement personal identification number and the activation personal identification being different, the disablement personal identification number being configured to allow a user of the account to select the disablement when the disablement personal identification number is received; access, as a result of receiving the disablement personal identification number, to determine at least one disablement action and an alert rule associated with the disablement personal identification number; determine the at least one disablement action to be performed, wherein the at least one disablement action includes at least at least one of disabling by preventing use by an unauthorized user, encrypting data, deleting data and immobilizing, associated with a user of the disablement personal identification number; transmit a command to perform at least one disablement action; transmit an alert message indicating that the disablement personal identification number has been used; wherein the personal identification number is associated with an account being accessed.
Independent Claim 17 recites perform an operation with an ATM; determine that a personal identification number is a disablement personal identification number that is associated with an account, the account having an activation personal identification number, the disablement personal identification number and the activation personal identification number being different, the disablement personal identification number being configured to allow a user of the account to select the disablement when the disablement personal identification number is received; access, as a result of receiving the disablement personal identification number, to determine at least one disablement action and an alert rule associated with the disablement personal identification number; determine the at least one disablement action to be performed, wherein the at least one disablement action includes disabling by preventing use by an unauthorized user by executing a physical action allowed; transmit an alert message indicating that the disablement personal identification number has been used; and transmit a command that performs the at least one disablement action; wherein the personal identification number is associated with an account being accessed.
The series of steps recited describe a fundamental economic practice; a commercial or legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and thus grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Yes. The claimed invention discloses method, product and system claims as disclosed above.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
As recited above, the series of steps recited in the independent claims describe a fundamental economic practice; a commercial or legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and thus grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites a computing device, a cardless ATM operation, a computer device, a disablement pin database, a user device, disablement application programming interface (API) service of the user device, another device of the plurality of devices and a pervasive global positioning system (GPS) on the accessing device.
Claim 13 recites one or more computer readable storage media, program instructions, a computer processor, a cardless ATM operation, a user device, a disablement pin database, the user device of the plurality of devices, a disablement application programming interface (API) service of the another device, the disablement API service of the user device, and a pervasive global positioning system (GPS) on the accessing device
Claim 17 recites a processor, a computer readable memory, one or more computer readable storage media, program instructions, a cardless ATM operation, a user device, a disablement pin database, another device of the plurality of devices, a pervasive global positioning system (GPS) on the accessing device and a disablement application programming interface (API) service of the user device
The claims recite a computer device, user device, another device, pervasive global positioning system (GPS) on the accessing device, computer readable storage media, a computer processor, computer readable memory, one or more computer storage media are applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recited program instructions, a disablement pin database and a disablement application programming interface (API) service(s) appear to be software. (Step 2A – Prong 1: YES, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In particular, the claims only recite a computing device, a cardless ATM operation, a computer device, user device, another device, pervasive global positioning system (GPS) on the accessing device, computer readable storage media, a computer processor, computer readable memory, one or more computer storage media, program instructions, a disablement pin database and a disablement application programming interface (API) service(s) which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 13 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and electronically scanning or extracting data (Content Extraction – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“In cloud computing node 10 there is a computer system/server 12, which is operational with numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing system environments or configurations. Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with computer system/server 12 include, but are not limited to, personal computer systems, server computer systems, thin clients, thick clients, handheld or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputer systems, mainframe computer systems, and distributed cloud computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like.” (See Applicant Specification para 44)
“Computer system/server 12 may be described in the general context of computer system executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by a computer system. Generally, program modules may include routines, programs, objects, components, logic, data structures, and so on that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Computer system/server 12 may be practiced in distributed cloud computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed cloud computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote computer system storage media including memory storage devices.” (See Applicant Specification para 45)
“As shown in FIG. 1, computer system/server 12 in cloud computing node 10 is shown in the form of a general-purpose computing device. The components of computer system/server 12 may include, but are not limited to, one or more processors of processing units 16, a system memory 28, and a bus 18 that couples various system components including system memory 28 to processor 16.” (See Applicant Specification para 46)
“Computer system/server 12 typically includes a variety of computer system readable media. Such media may be any available media that is accessible by computer system/server 12, and it includes both volatile and non-volatile media, removable and non-removable media.” (See Applicant Specification para 48)
“System memory 28 can include computer system readable media in the form of volatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM) 30 and/or cache memory 32. Computer system/server 12 may further include other removable/non-removable, volatile/non-volatile computer system storage media. By way of example only, storage system 34 can be provided for reading from and writing to a non-removable, non-volatile magnetic media (not shown and typically called a “hard drive”). Although not shown, a magnetic disk drive for reading from and writing to a removable, non-volatile magnetic disk (e.g., a “floppy disk”), and an optical disk drive for reading from or writing to a removable, non-volatile optical disk such as a CD-ROM, DVD-ROM or other optical media can be provided. In such instances, each can be connected to bus 18 by one or more data media interfaces. As will be further depicted and described below, memory 28 may include at least one program product having a set (e.g., at least one) of program modules that are configured to carry out of the functions of embodiments of the invention.” (See Applicant Specification para 49)
“Computer system/server 12 may also communicate with one or more external devices 14 such as a keyboard, a pointing device, a display 24, etc.; one or more devices that enable a user to interact with computer system/server 12; and/or any devices (e.g., network card, modem, etc.) that enable computer system/server 12 to communicated with one or more other computing devices. Such communication can occur via Input/Output (I/O) interfaces 22. Still yet, computer system/server 12 can communicate with one or more networks such as a local area network (LAN), a general wide area network (WAN), and/or a public network (e.g., the Internet) via network adapter 20. As depicted, network adapter 20 communicates with the other components of computer system/server 12 via bus 18. It should be understood that although not shown, other hardware and/or software components could be used in conjunction with computer system/server 12. Examples, include, but are not limited to: microcode, device drivers, redundant processing units, external disk drive arrays, RAID systems, tape devices, and data archival storage systems, etc.” (See Applicant Specification para 51)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 1, 13 and 17 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 2-12, 14-16 and 18-20 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the respective Independent Claims 1, 13 and 17 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above.
Claims 2 and 14 additionally recite a wireless network. Claims 4-6, 15-16 and 19 further recite an ATM. Claims 6 and 16 additionally recites a smart phone. Claim 7 further recites a smart watch. Claim 9 further recites that the user device is an automobile. Claim 18 further recites a Bluetooth connection. Claim 20 recites an electronic device other than the ATM.
These additional elements, as currently recited, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
No further additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Applied
Wright et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0387903) – disclosing methods, apparatuses/systems and media for implementing a multi-tier intercommunication module (MTIM) for an ATM to prevent fraudulent and forced transactions.
Fakhraie et al. (US Patent 10,992,679) – disclosing systems, methods and apparatuses for providing a customer a central location to manage permissions provided to third parties and devices to access and use customer information maintained by a financial institution. (See Fakhraie Abstract) The shared customer information can include any combination of account information associated with financial accounts held by a customer, including account numbers, documents, customer personal information, and information associated with customer devices and third-party systems. (See Fakhraie Col. 3, lines 3-49) provided by the financial institution. (See Fakhraie Col. 5, lines 1-5)
The customer is associated with various customer devices, including smartphones, wearables (including smart watches), internet of things devices and each of these customer devices may be provided access to different portions of the information associated with the customer that is stored, generated, maintained and/or controlled in part by the financial institution. (See Fakhraie Col. 5, lines 6-33, Col. 14, line 40- Col. 15, line 61, Fig. 7)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 7, 2025 have been fully considered as further detailed below.
As to the Terminal Disclaimer:
Examiner notes Applicant’s declination to provide a Terminal Disclaimer and reasserts that one is warranted. (See Applicant Arguments dated 11/07/2025, page 8)
As to the Claim Interpretation:
Examiner has revised the section based on Applicant’s amendments. Further, as to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner is not disregarding any limitations, rather the limitations that recite the intended use of a claim are not being given additional weight. (Id. at page 9)
As to the 112 Rejections:
The 112 rejections have been revised based on the latest amendments. Examiner appreciates the amendments made to address the issues presented. (Id. at pages 9-13) By their amendments, Applicant has made significant strides in resolving 112 issues in the claim set. The issues that remain are disclosed in the rejection in chief, above.
As to the 101 Rejection:
Applicant argues that independent claim 1 should be deemed patent eligible because the features of claim 1 include particular devices such as an ATM and devices with a disablement API that executes a command for disablement of a device. (Id. at page 13) Further, Applicant argues that the claim is patent subject matter patent eligible because it configures new data, such as the disablement PIN. (Id.) Applicant continues, arguing that the disablement PIN includes information associated with the PIN such as a disablement action of the device that is to be disabled, an alert rule, and a modification of the disablement action based on the location of the ATM. (Id.) Applicant asserts that the information is stored in the disablement pin database and is used in subsequent steps that constitute an improvement in the technical field of cardless ATM operations. (Id.)
Applicant refers to paragraph 15 of their specification in support of their position. The specification, at paragraph 15, discloses that the functionality is as to the technical problem of unauthorized use of devices in implementing cardless ATM operations. Here, the cardless ATM operation has already been performed, thus the technical problem being solved in paragraph 15 is not applicable. Further, Applicant asserts that claim 1 provides a recitation of the execution of disablement commands and the asserted improvement in a technical field by generating (i.e., configuring) new data. (Id.) Examiner disagrees. There does not appear to be sufficient support for the idea that new data is generated. Rather, it appears that the data is that of the database configured by a user.
Applicant continues, arguing that even if Examiner does not consider the disablement pin database information new data, the recitation of the disablement PIN should still be given patentable weight as the recited disablement PIN establishes which user device is selected for disablement and how it occurs. (Id. at page 14) This is not new data, rather this is following a rule established by a user when a disablement PIN is utilized.
Applicant continues arguing again that new data is configured, but also attempts to include location information of the accessing device in that data. (Id.) Examiner disagrees. This is not new data.
The 101 Rejection is maintained.
As to the 103 Rejections:
Based on Applicant’s arguments and amendments, no prior art rejection is being applied at this time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 February 28, 2026