DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Jul. 30, 2026, and is made Non-Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Interviews are “indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application.” MPEP § 713. Accordingly, the following Examiner’s guidance and suggested workflow maximizes this benefit to Applicant by: (1) avoiding back and forth telephone calls for scheduling, (2) permitting Examiner out-of-office notifications to the Applicant when emailing the agenda, and (3) permitting real-time document collaboration and screen sharing.
Interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If an interview is needed more quickly than permitted by the AIR scheduling tool, note this in the AIR remarks for consideration. The Examiner routinely considers such urgent requests when practicable.
An agenda submitted when filing the AIR is strongly encouraged, because Examiners use agendas when determining whether to grant an interview. The AIR has character limits, so send the agenda contemporaneously to James.Miller1@uspto.gov and reference the AIR.
After-Final Interviews Requests are granted only at the Examiner’s discretion and only if disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. MPEP § 713.09. An advance agenda explaining how the interview advances prosecution—e.g., through targeted arguments, identified Examiner error, or proposed claim amendments—is strongly suggested.
For GRANTED requests, expect an email within two (2) business days confirming a date/time slot and collaboration tool access instructions. For DENIED requests, the record will include an explanation for the denial.
The examiner is generally available for interviews, Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Jul. 30, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10–12, 14, 15, 17–19, and 21–26 are now pending and examined with Claims 1, 8, and 15 in independent form.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are presently amended.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are presently cancelled.
Claims 24–26 are presently added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Aug. 7, 2024, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Examiner’s Statement of Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The claims are eligible under 35 USC § 101. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite statutory subject matter and recite a mental process exception grouping relating to evaluating financial service device information and selecting a device. However, Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 integrate any such exception into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong Two, though additional meaningful limitations considered as a combination. MPEP § 2106.05(e). In combination, the additional meaningful limitations of Representative Claim 1 [“Rep. Claim 1”] are:
receive information related to capabilities associated with a plurality of second devices associated with financial services, wherein the information related to the capabilities includes information indicating compatibility of the plurality of second devices with at least one of: a brand of a financial card, an account associated with a financial institution related to the financial card, or a financial service associated with the financial institution; receive, from a first user device, a request to identify a second device, of the plurality of second devices; determine, after receiving the request, scores for the plurality of second devices, wherein the scores are based on the information related to the capabilities; provide, to a second user device, information identifying the second device based on the scores; cause a navigational application to automatically open on the second user device; cause the navigational application to be populated with information identifying a location of the second device; and cause the navigational application to provide directions to the second device.
These limitations, considered as a combination, do not merely recommend an ATM for later manual action. They require the selection result to automatically control navigation functionality on a second user device, resulting in a location-specific navigation operation directed to the selected physical device. The Specification describes “aggregate[ing] the information from multiple ATM devices” (Spec. ¶ 18) including “a type of transaction card (e.g., a transaction card that includes a chip, a transaction card that includes a magnetic strip, etc.), a compatibility of the ATM device with a brand of transaction card, denominations of cash provided by the ATM device, and/or the like.” Spec. ¶ 17. The Specification further describes the “ATM recommendation platform 230 may provide information identifying a location of ATM device 220 to user device 210 to permit user device 210 to determine a set of directions to the selected ATM device 220. … ATM recommendation platform 230 may provide a set of instructions to user device 210 to cause user device 210 to determine a set of directions to a selected ATM device 220. … ATM recommendation platform 230 may cause a navigational application to open on user device 210 and to provide directions (e.g., turn-by-tum directions) to a location of ATM device 220. This conserves processing resources of user device 210 that would otherwise be consumed by a user of user device 210 manually opening the navigational application, inputting information that identifies a location of ATM device 220, and causing the navigational application to provide directions to the location of ATM device 220.” Spec. ¶ 92. Thus, any abstract idea exception is integrated into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong Two, though additional meaningful limitations considered as a combination. MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 103 Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10–12, 14, 15, 17–19, and 21–26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26: It is believed that “receive receiving a request to identify a particular device” is “receive
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0198446) [“Perez”] in view of Ellis et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0134675) [“Ellis”] and further in view of Konig et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0339923) [“Konig”]
Regarding Claim 1, Perez discloses:
A first device [Fig. 1, “augmented reality device 1000”], comprising: one or more memories [¶ 34, “Random Access Memory”]; and one or more processors [Fig. 1, “CPU 2000”], communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
(See at least Fig. 1 and associated text ¶ 34, “It is understood that processor 2000 may temporarily store instructions and data in Random Access Memory (not shown),” which is communicatively coupled.)
receive information related to capabilities associated with a plurality of second devices [ATMs] associated with financial services,
(See at least ¶ 32, “ATM location database 1920 is a database that stores the location of ATMs that are proximate (nearby) the user, or areas frequented by the user.” ¶ 49, “ATM locator 2120 retrieves information about the automated teller machine from the ATM location database 1920 … The retrieved information may include the ATM owner, hours of availability, payment networks supported, address of the automated teller machine, the fees charged by the automated teller machine, and maximum cash amount that may be withdrawn from the automated teller machine.”)
wherein the information related to the capabilities includes information indicating compatibility of the plurality of second devices [ATMs] with at least one of: a brand of a financial card [payment networks supported], an account associated with a financial institution related to the financial card [match …], or a financial service associated with the financial institution;
(See at least ¶ 37, “An issuer application 2110 receives the user's/cardholder's specific payment card information, such as issuer, ATM card number or payment card PAN. This information may be stored in a financial account database 1910. Issuer application 2110 may attempt to match the card holder's ATM cards with ATM location database 1920.” ¶ 49, “ATM locator 2120 retrieves information about the automated teller machine from the ATM location database 1920 … The retrieved information may include the ATM owner, hours of availability, payment networks supported, address of the automated teller machine, the fees charged by the automated teller machine, and maximum cash amount that may be withdrawn from the automated teller machine.”)
receive, from a first user device, a request to identify a second device [ATM], of the plurality of second devices [ATMs];
(See at least ¶ 36, “A locator application 2100 enables the functionality for the consumer to locate and determine the characteristics of an automated teller machine.” ¶ 38, “ATM locator 2120 is a program or service that determines proximate ATM locations based on ATM location database 1920.” See also. ¶¶ 41, Fig. 3)
[…]
Perez determines multiple nearby ATMs, their locations, and relevant ATM capabilities. Perez, ¶¶ 19, 32, 37, 38, 48, 49, 55. Although proximity can reasonably serve as a distance derived score, Perez does not expressly calculate respective scores for multiple nearby ATMs or state that scores are based on ATM capabilities. Thus, Perez does not disclose but Ellis discloses:
determine, after receiving the request, scores for the plurality of second devices, wherein the scores are based on the information related to the capabilities;
(See at least ¶ 5, when a user is searching for automated teller machines (ATMs), the user may submit a query which includes the term "ATM" and a zip code … With regard to a query for an ATM which includes a zip code, environmental factors or other contextual data, such as weather information, may be used to filter, aggregate, rank, or score different ATMs. In this example, users may be provided with the location, distance, and weather information associated with one or more different ATMs. If it is snowing out, the user may be directed to an ATM where less snow has accumulated on the ground. In one or more embodiments, a data engine may suggest an ATM which is located indoors or covered from the elements or snow, thereby associating a search context with a query.” See also, ¶¶ 21, 22, 25, 29, 54, 55.
provide, […], information identifying the second device based on the scores;
(See at least ¶ 22, “Here, in this example, the context component 140 may determine that the usage context or context for the query (e.g., finding the ATM) is a driving environment, and thereby direct a data engine 150 to filter indoor ATMs from the search or provide ATMs where a drive through option is available. That is, as an example, a user may be directed to a second ATM which is farther in distance or driving time than a first ATM which is closer in distance or driving time because the second ATM has a drive through and the first ATM is located indoors.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the known ATM location system of Perez to determine, after receiving the request, scores for the plurality of second devices, wherein the scores are based on the information related to the capabilities and provide information identifying the second device based on the scores as taught by Ellis. Perez discloses identifying nearby ATMs and obtaining ATM related information, while Ellis teaches that, for an ATM query, contextual and destination information may be used to “filter, aggregate, rank, or score different ATMs.” Perez, ¶ 5; see also, ¶¶ 32, 37, 28, 48, 49, 55. The motivation to combine would be to improve selection of candidate ATMs in Perez by applying Elli’s known scoring technique to the candidate ATM information maintained or retrieved by Perez. The modification would have predictably permitted selection of a suitable ATM from multiple nearby ATMs based on available ATM characteristics, rather than providing only a nearby ATM identification that Perez discloses.
Perez and Ellis in combination teaches providing ATM information based on scores. However, Perez and Ellis do not explicitly teach that the recipient is a second user device different from the first user device or invoking navigation functionality on the second device. Thus, the combination of Perez and Ellis does not disclose but Konig discloses:
provide, to a second user device, information identifying the second device based on the scores;
(See at least ¶ 110, “As shown in FIG. 1, the system comprises three principal components: a server 10; a plurality of vehicle requesting devices 12; and a plurality of vehicles 14, each being equipped with a device 200 having route planning and navigation functionality.” The requesting device may be a mobile phone (¶ 111) and the second device may be a “device in the vehicle”. ¶ 114. When a vehicle request is received at the server 10 [job], the server will select a suitable vehicle 14 that meets the criteria set out in the request.” ¶ 113. After selection, information identifying the job is sent to the distinct navigation device. “Once a vehicle has won a job, details of the job are sent to the vehicle's navigation device 200. The details will include the pick-up location and may also include the details of the person who made the request.” ¶ 118).
Perez supplies candidate ATM location information and Ellis provides the scoring of candidate ATMs. Applying Konig’s known server to distinct navigation device transmission would cause the Perez and Ellis combination to provide the information identifying the ATM selected based on the scores to a second user device, such as a navigation system in a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the Perez/Ellis system, the ability to provide the information identifying the ATM selected based on the scores to a second user device, such as a navigation system in a vehicle as taught by Konig, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Konig further discloses:
cause a navigational application to automatically open on the second user device;
(See at least ¶ 118, “The navigation device can automatically, or upon an input by the driver, calculate a route from the vehicle's current position to the pick-up location, and begin guiding the driver to the location.” ¶ 110, “a plurality of vehicles 14, each being equipped with a device 200 having route planning and navigation functionality.” ¶ 36, “portable navigation device (PND) that can be removably mounted within a vehicle or an in-vehicle navigation system, … the second device may also comprise a mobile telephone, PDA, tablet computer or the like running suitable software programs.” It would have been obvious for the second user device to automatically invoke its route planning and navigation functionality upon receipt of the selected ATM location to avoid manual entry of that location.)
cause the navigational application to be populated with information identifying a location of the second device; and cause the navigational application to provide directions to the second device.
(See at least ¶ 118, “Once a vehicle has won a job, details of the job are sent to the vehicle's navigation device 200. The details will include the pick-up location, and may also include the details of the person who made the request. The navigation device can automatically, or upon an input by the driver, calculate a route from the vehicle's current position to the pick-up location, and begin guiding the driver to the location.” ¶ 140, “The digital map data is used by the navigation device 200 to calculate routes between locations that can be traversed by the vehicle carrying the navigation device, and to provide suitable navigation instructions to driver to guide him or her along the calculated route.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Perez and Ellis ATM location system to transmit the location of their selected ATM to a separate navigation capable device and automatically initiate route guidance, as taught by Konig. Konig discloses using a server to transmit selected location/job details to a separate navigation device and automatically calculate a route and begin guidance to the transmitted location. Konig, ¶¶ 110–118. Applying that known technique to th selected ATM location in the Perez-Ellis combination system would have predictably enabled a user to travel to the selected ATM without manually entering the selected ATM location into the navigation system, improving user convenience and reducing manual input while driving (improve safety).
Regarding Claim 3, Perez, Ellis and Konig disclose:
The first device of claim 1 and the first user device
Konig discloses:
wherein the first user device is associated with a first user, and wherein the second user device is associated with a second user.
(See at least ¶ 26, “The first devices may be carried by users and the second devices may be mounted to vehicles. In embodiments therefore, the vehicle request management system comprises a server comprising communication means arranged to communicate with a plurality of first devices and a plurality of second devices each being associated with a vehicle. The plurality of first devices are a plurality of different first devices and the plurality of second devices are a plurality of different second devices.” ¶ 27, “The first location is preferably a pick-up location, i.e. where a user desires to be picked-up by a vehicle.” ¶ 30, “the vehicle requester will be the user i.e. the person wishing to travel in the vehicle, in other cases, e.g. where the request is placed via a first device that is associated with a single pick-up location such as a hotel, etc, the vehicle requester may be different to the intended vehicle user.” ¶ 28, “[after inferring] that the user will travel to a suggested destination (e.g., a suggested bank). Here, the context component 140 may direct the data engine 150 to filter, aggregate, score, or rank one or more destination locations based on these route based characteristics.). ¶ 29, “rank or score potential destinations with better signal or data coverage; ¶ 54, “the data engine 150 may direct a user to a fee-based ATM over a non-fee ATM or rank the fee-based ATM which is closer to the user higher than the non-fee ATM)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine/modify the system/method of Perez-ELLIS, which discloses systems, devices and methods of presenting matching locations and ATMs based on a user preferences and/or proximity (ELLIS ¶[0025], ¶[0036], and ¶[0057]) with the technique of KONIG, which teaches showing a map to a user on their mobile device of nearby taxis (KONIG ¶[0004]) or other service providers (KONIG ¶[0097]) in order to take advantage of location aware user devices to improve the experience of ordering and requesting services (KONIG ¶[0002]) and to optimize fulfillment of user requests (KONIG ¶[0012]).
Regarding Claim 4, Perez, Ellis and Konig disclose:
The first device of claim 1 and the one or more processors
Ellis discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a rank for the plurality of second devices based on the scores.
(See at least ¶ 5, “With regard to a query for an ATM […] contextual data […] may be used to filter, aggregate, rank, or score different ATMs.” ¶ 21, “When a user submits a query such as "Find me an ATM" to the search component 120, the context or usage context may be taken into account to filter, narrow, rank, or determine results for the query”).
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 7, Perez, Ellis and Konig disclose:
The first device of claim 1 and the one or more processors
Ellis discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive information related to a fee charged by the plurality of second devices; and determine the scores further based on the information related to the fee.
(ELLIS: ¶[0054]: Additionally, the context component 140 may determine a context based on financial incentives, such as whether or not an ATM has a fee associated therewith or whether there is a minimum purchase amount associated with a debit card cashback transaction. When multiple ATMs are available (without fees) nearby, the data engine may prioritize the fee-free ATMs over ATMs which may charge the user a fee. However, if the context component 140 determines that a user is in a hurry (e.g., has an upcoming appointment detected by the context component 140, such as on a task-list or calendar appointment) or that the distance is greater than a distance threshold (e.g., the drive is greater than a ten minute drive time or ten mile drive distance between the fee-based ATM and the no-fee ATM), then the data engine 150 may direct a user to a fee-based ATM over a non-fee ATM or rank the fee-based ATM which is closer to the user higher than the non-fee ATM.).
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, Perez discloses:
A method, comprising:
(See at least ¶ 10, “method”)
The remaining limitations of Claim 8 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Perez, Ellis, and Konig for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claims 10, 11, and 14, Perez, Ellis, and Konig disclose:
The method of claim 8,
The remaining limitations of Claims 10, 11, and 14 are not substantively different than those presented in Claims 3, 4, and 7, respectively, and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Perez, Ellis, and Konig for the same rationale presented in Claims 3, 4, and 7, respectively, supra.
Regarding Claim 15, Perez discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising:
(See at least Claim 10)
The remaining limitations of Claim 15 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Perez, Ellis, and Konig for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 15.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Perez, Ellis, and Konig disclose:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15
The remaining limitations of Claims 17 and 18 are not substantively different than those presented in Claims 3 and 4, respectively, and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Perez, Ellis, and Konig for the same rationale presented in Claims 3 and 4, respectively, supra.
Regarding Claims 21, 22, and 23, Perez, Ellis, and Konig disclose:
The first device of claim 1, he method of claim 8, and The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, respectively.
Ellis discloses:
wherein the information related to the capabilities includes information associated with a fee related to the plurality of second devices.
(ELLIS: ¶[0054]: Additionally, the context component 140 may determine a context based on financial incentives, such as whether or not an ATM has a fee associated therewith […]. When multiple ATMs are available (without fees) nearby, the data engine may prioritize the fee-free ATMs over ATMs which may charge the user a fee. However, if the context component 140 determines that a user is in a hurry (e.g., has an upcoming appointment detected by the context component 140, such as on a task-list or calendar appointment) or that the distance is greater than a distance threshold (e.g., the drive is greater than a ten minute drive time or ten mile drive distance between the fee-based ATM and the no-fee ATM), then the data engine 150 may direct a user to a fee-based ATM over a non-fee ATM or rank the fee-based ATM which is closer to the user higher than the non-fee ATM; ¶[0054]: the data engine 150 may direct a user to a fee-based ATM over a non-fee ATM or rank the fee-based ATM which is closer to the user higher than the non-fee ATM).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ATM location system of Perez, with information associated with a fee related to the plurality of second devices of Ellis with the motivation to select a nearby ATM with the lowest fees.
Regarding Claim 24, Perez, Ellis, and Konig disclose:
The first device of claim 1 and one or more processors
Perez further discloses
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a request to identify a particular device [particular ATM selected from candidate ATM devices], wherein the identified particular device is associated with the second device [candidate ATM identified/selected in Claim 1].
(See at least Fig. 5 and associated text ¶ 38, “ATM locator 2120 is a program or service that determines proximate ATM locations based on ATM location database 1920.” ¶ 47, “Based on the determined location and direction, ATM locator 2120 matches the location against automated teller machines stored in the ATM location database 1920, block 3004.”)
Ellis further discloses
“When a user submits a query such as "Find me an ATM." ¶ 21. Ellis further discloses that “With regard to a query for an ATM … environmental factors or other contextual data, such as weather information, may be used to filter, aggregate, rank, or score different ATMs.” ¶ 5. “a user may be directed to a second ATM which is farther in distance or driving time than a first ATM which is closer in distance or driving time because the second ATM has a drive through and the first ATM is located indoors.” ¶ 22.
Thus, Perez supplies the ATM location system and Ellis supplies the request-based selection of particular ATM from multiple ATM candidates. In Perez and Ellis combines system, the particular ATM identified in response to the user’s request is the selected candidate ATM i.e., the “second device” already identified under Claim 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Ellis’s request based selection of a particular ATM from multiple candidate ATM devices to Perez’s ATM location system because the modification would predictably improve Perez’s ATM locater by permitting the system to receive a request directed to a particular ATM and identify that particular ATM from among multiple ATMs based on certain characteristics. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 25, Perez, Ellis, and Konig disclose:
The method of claim 8
Perez further discloses
further comprising: receiving a request to identify a particular device [particular ATM selected from candidate ATM devices].
(See at least Fig. 5 and associated text ¶ 38, “ATM locator 2120 is a program or service that determines proximate ATM locations based on ATM location database 1920.” ¶ 47, “Based on the determined location and direction, ATM locator 2120 matches the location against automated teller machines stored in the ATM location database 1920, block 3004.”)
Ellis further discloses
“When a user submits a query such as "Find me an ATM." ¶ 21. Ellis further discloses that “With regard to a query for an ATM … environmental factors or other contextual data, such as weather information, may be used to filter, aggregate, rank, or score different ATMs.” ¶ 5. “a user may be directed to a second ATM which is farther in distance or driving time than a first ATM which is closer in distance or driving time because the second ATM has a drive through and the first ATM is located indoors.” ¶ 22.
Thus, Perez supplies the ATM location system and Ellis supplies the request-based selection of particular ATM from multiple ATM candidates. In Perez and Ellis combines system, the particular ATM identified in response to the user’s request is the selected candidate ATM i.e., the “second device” already identified under Claim 1.)
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 24 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 26, Perez, Ellis, and Konig disclose:
he non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 and one or more instructions further cause the first device to
Perez further discloses
receive receiving a request to identify a particular device.
(See at least ¶ 36, “A locator application 2100 enables the functionality for the consumer to locate and determine the characteristics of an automated teller machine.” ¶ 38, “ATM locator 2120 is a program or service that determines proximate ATM locations based on ATM location database 1920.” ¶ 47, “Based on the determined location and direction, ATM locator 2120 matches the location against automated teller machines stored in the ATM location database 1920, block 3004.”
Ellis further discloses
“When a user submits a query such as "Find me an ATM." ¶ 21. Ellis further discloses that “With regard to a query for an ATM … environmental factors or other contextual data, such as weather information, may be used to filter, aggregate, rank, or score different ATMs.” ¶ 5. “a user may be directed to a second ATM which is farther in distance or driving time than a first ATM which is closer in distance or driving time because the second ATM has a drive through and the first ATM is located indoors.” ¶ 22.
Thus, Perez supplies the ATM location system and Ellis supplies the request-based selection of particular ATM from multiple ATM candidates. In Perez and Ellis combines system, the particular ATM identified in response to the user’s request is the selected candidate ATM i.e., the “second device” already identified under Claim 1.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 24 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 26.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez, Ellis, and Konig, and further in view of Perry et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0203444) [“Perry”]
Regarding Claim 5, Perez, Ellis and Konig disclose:
The first device of claim 1 and the one or more processors
Perez discloses processing cardholder specific issuer, ATM card number, and PAN information and matching cardholder ATM cards with an ATM location database. Perez, ¶¶ 32, 27. Perez further retrieves ATM information including “payment networks supported.” Perez, ¶ 49. Perez does not expressly disclose receiving information related to compatibility of the ATM with a type of communications technology available with a transaction card. Thus, Perez does not disclose but Perry discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive information related to a compatibility of the second device with a type of communications technology available with a transaction card; and
(See at least ¶ 32, “A "contactless access device" may refer to an access device that may communicate using short range wireless communications. This may comprise any method of providing short-range wireless communications capability, such as RFID, Bluetooth™, infra-red, or other data transfer capability that can be used to exchange data between a portable consumer device and an access device. In some embodiments, short range wireless communications may be in conformance with a standardized protocol or data transfer mechanism (e.g., ISO 14443/NFC).” ¶ 72, “The location contactless access device properties 315 may indicate properties of the contactless access device (s) at the location. For example, location contactless access device properties 315 may include the manufacturer of the contactless access device (i.e., the make) and/or a model associated with the manufacturer. In some embodiments of the invention, location contactless access device properties 315 may be used to provide an indication of protocols, technologies, payment products, or brands supported by the contactless access device. For example, an indication of whether the access device supports Bluetooth™, NFC, pay Wave™, or other technology may be included.” See also, ¶ 83.
Ellis discloses:
determine the scores further based on the information related to the compatibility.
(See at least ¶ 5, cited supra.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Perez-Ellis-Konig system with Perry’s known transaction card communications technology compatibility information. A PHOSITA would have recognized that the Perry compatibility result is a usable device attribute for the Ellis scoring technique already applied to Perry’s ATM location system. Incorporating the compatibility of the second device with a type of communications technology available with a transaction card would predictably improve the Perez-Elis, Konig system by avoiding selection of and navigation to an ATM that cannot communicate with the cardholder’s transaction technology. This is a predictable use of a known capability criterion in a known ATM selection, scoring and navigation system. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.)
Regarding Claim 12, Perez, Ellis and Konig disclose:
The method of claim 8
The remaining limitations of Claim 8 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 5 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Perez, Ellis, Konig, and Perry for the same rationale presented in Claim 5 supra.
Regarding Claim 19, Perez, Ellis and Konig disclose:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15
The remaining limitations of Claim 19 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 5 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Perez, Ellis, Konig, and Perry for the same rationale presented in Claim 5 supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights