DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 RCE submission filed on 2/5/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is to a method (i.e., a process), claim 9 to a non-transitory machine-readable medium (i.e., an article of manufacture), and claim 17 to an automated teller machine (ATM) (i.e., a machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1, 9, and 17 is (claim 1 being representative):
detecting damage;
performing a damage assessment based on the detected damage by:
processing data;
determining a type and a severity of the damage to the ATM based on analyzing the data by sensor type of the plurality of sensors;
generating a damage report based on the damage assessment, the damage report including the type of the damage and at least one of the severity of the damage, a recommended repair action, or an indication to dispatch a technician;
outputting the damage report;
automatically selecting a security measure from a plurality of security measures based on a combination of the type and the severity of the damage in the damage report; and
activating the selected security measure.
The abstract idea steps italicized above describe the rules or instructions that govern the selection and implementation of a security measure, communicated between parties, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by para. [0002] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or generally linking to a field of use, as described in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: automated teller machine (ATM); damage detection sensor; processing circuitry; from a plurality of sensors of the ATM, the plurality of sensors including at least a first sensor of a first type and a second sensor of a second type, the first type and the second type being different sensor types.
Claim 9 recites the following additional elements: automated teller machine (ATM); non-transitory machine-readable medium; processing circuitry; damage detection sensor; from a plurality of sensors of the ATM, the plurality of sensors including at least a first sensor of a first type and a second sensor of a second type, the first type and the second type being different sensor types.
Claim 17 recites the following additional elements: automated teller machine (ATM); damage detection sensor; processing circuitry; memory; from a plurality of sensors of the ATM, the plurality of sensors including at least a first sensor of a first type and a second sensor of a second type, the first type and the second type being different sensor types.
With the exception of the “automated teller machine (ATM),” these elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in para. [0072]-[0075] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Examiner interprets the “automated teller machine (ATM)” as generally linking to the technical field. In this instance, the “automated teller machine (ATM)” merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system, described in the context of a particular field of use. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or generally linking to a field of use, as described in MPEP 2106.05(h), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f), (h).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or generally linked to a field of use, as described in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system, described in the context of a particular field of use. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or generally linking to a field of use, as described in MPEP 2106.05(h), they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 recite further additional elements (claim 2: wherein the damage detection sensor of the ATM includes at least one of a temperature sensor, an accelerometer, a magnetometer, a pressure sensor, a force sensor, a shock sensor, a tilt sensor, a humidity sensor, a microphone, or an infrared sensor; claim 10: wherein the damage detection sensor of the ATM includes at least one of a temperature sensor, an accelerometer, a magnetometer, a pressure sensor, a force sensor, a sunlight sensor, a shock sensor, a tilt sensor, a humidity sensor, a sound sensor, or an infrared sensor; claim 18: wherein the ATM further comprises a long-term storage including historical repair data for the ATM). Similar to above, these generic computing elements are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 3-8, 11-16, and 19-20 further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or information and would therefore fall into the same groupings highlighted at Step 2A Prong One. There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This narrowing of the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application or add significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-13, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US 12148270) in view of Konrardy (US 20220237718) and Serrão (BR 102024006746 A2; paragraph numbers correspond to those found in attached translation).
Claims 1, 9, and 17
Peng discloses:
[A method {Col. 1, lines 1-20} comprising:]
[At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium including instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry of an automated teller machine (ATM) {Col. 6, lines 10-20. Also see col. 3, line 50 to col. 4, line 15.}, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations to:]
[An automated teller machine (ATM) {Col. 1, lines 5-15} comprising: a damage detection sensor to detect damage to the ATM {Col. 3, line 50 to col. 4, line 15}; processing circuitry {Col. 3, line 50 to col. 4, line 15}; and memory, including instructions {Col. 3, line 50 to col. 4, line 15}, which when executed by the processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to:]
detecting damage to an automated teller machine (ATM) by a damage detection sensor of the ATM {The sensors in the MEMS may detect any unusual movement, hardware tampering, or other suspicious activity 154. Similarly, checks can be made for internal ATM components for temperature, humidity, voltage, current, or physical phenomena changes 156. These can be transmitted/related to the ATM from the MEMS and then appropriate threat, malfunction, etc. notifications can be made to a remote information security server or the like 164. Decisions may be made to then remotely disconnect or shut down the ATM as in 166. Col. 10, lines 50-60. Examiner notes that damage includes tampering, as described in [0001] of applicant’s specification as filed.};
performing, using processing circuitry of the ATM, a damage assessment based on the detected damage {As one high level graphical illustration, FIG. 4 shows a smart-dust information security and energy optimization process initiated in 400. MEMS are deployed/distributed on, in, or about ATM in 402. Electrical energy and power is received and stored in MEMS at 404. Sensed data is detected and stored in 406. The sensed data is transmitted/relayed in 408 to the ATM, which makes determinations based on the sensed data in 410. Hibernation/activation of the ATM is performed based on the sensed data 412. Threat notification based on any tamper indicia may be generated in 414. Component malfunction notifications, if malfunctions are detected, may be generated in 416. ATMs may be shut down automatically or remotely based on instructions from monitoring/control servers to save energy or, if necessary, for security threats or malfunctions in 418. Col. 12, lines 10-25.}.
Peng, while disclosing an ATM that detects damage, doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Konrardy, in a similar field of endeavor directed to damage detection of network-connected devices, teaches:
processing data from a plurality of sensors of the [device], the plurality of sensors including at least a first sensor of a first type and a second sensor of a second type, the first type and the second type being different sensor types {To this end, the smart home 187.1 may include a plurality of sensors (not depicted) disposed on or proximate to the smart home 187.1. For example, the smart home 187.1 may include a smoke sensor, a temperature sensor, a flood level sensor, a motion sensor, an image sensor, a thermal image sensor, and so on. Para. [0056]. The controller 204 may process the sensor data, the communication data, and the settings or configuration information to determine whether an incident has occurred (block 410). As used herein, an “incident” is an occurrence during operation of an autonomous vehicle, smart home, and/or personal electronic device outside of normal safe operating conditions, e.g., there is damage to the vehicle, smart home, personal electronic device or other property. Para. [0116].};
determining a type and a severity of the damage to the [device] based on analyzing the data by sensor type of the plurality of sensors {The remote reviewer may then verify, modify, or determine an occurrence, type of occurrence, and/or damage or severity of the occurrence based upon the information received from the vehicle 108, the smart home 187, and/or the personal electronic device 189. This may include communicating with persons in the vicinity of the vehicle 108, the smart home 187, and/or the personal electronic device 189 using the communication components of the vehicle 108, the smart home 187, and/or the personal electronic device 189, as described above. Para. [0158].};
generating, at the [device], a damage report based on the damage assessment, the damage report including the type of the damage and at least one of the severity of the damage, a recommended repair action, or an indication to dispatch a technician {In some such embodiments, the on-hoard computer 114, the smart home controller 185, and/or the personal electronic device 189 may send information via the network 130 to the remote reviewer, who may access the information via the network 130 or through the server 140. Such information may include operating data (or a subset of relevant operating data), images, or video recordings of the incident. In some embodiments, the remote reviewer may, with permission, operate one or more cameras of the vehicle 108, the smart home 187, and/or the personal electronic device 189 to obtain streaming video or periodic images from the vehicle 108, the smart home 187, and/or the personal electronic device 189 during review. When operating data is received from the vehicle 108, the smart home 187, and/or the personal electronic device 189, the server 140 may further process the operating data to present it in a human-readable format (e.g., a table, chart, or graphical depiction) based upon calculations made from non-human-readable operating data. Para. [0157]. The remote reviewer may then verify, modify, or determine an occurrence, type of occurrence, and/or damage or severity of the occurrence based upon the information received from the vehicle 108, the smart home 187, and/or the personal electronic device 189. Para. [0158].}; and
outputting, from the [device], the damage report {See previous citations to [0157], [0158]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Peng to include the features of Konrardy. Given that Peng is directed to damage detection in ATMs, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Konrardy, in order to facilitate detecting malfunctions, determining repairs, determining component operating status, or generally evaluating effectiveness or reliability of components and features {[0033] of Konrardy}.
The combination of Peng and Konrardy doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Serrão, in a similar field of endeavor directed to ATM security, teaches:
automatically selecting, using the processing circuitry of the ATM, a security measure from a plurality of security measures based on a combination of the type and the severity of the damage in the damage report {[0050] The algorithm makes decisions about activating a 'relay' (possibly a control device, such as a relay or similar switch). The decisions to activate or deactivate the 'relay' are based on the confidence score exceeding certain limits, previously configured as part of the security policy. In other words, the confidence algorithm assigns rewards to a variable (confidence value) when normal situations are detected (up to a maximum value). However, a penalty is assigned to the confidence value when attack situations are detected, and its confidence value is decreased (to a minimum value). Depending on the confidence value, calculated by the confidence algorithm, a relay activation signal is triggered by the relay activation submodule (018), so that appropriate measures can be taken, such as inking banknotes, activating the bank branch alarm, among others. Furthermore, these limits determine how quickly the confidence score can vary in response to prediction patterns, providing flexible response dynamics. Figures 3, 4, and 5 represent a specific event where some type of attack occurs on an ATM terminal. Figure 3 shows examples of the intelligent model's predictions, Figure 4 highlights relay activations based on the policy algorithm, and Figure 5 displays the evolution of the confidence value over time. These visual representations help to understand how the system responds to security events. - Relay Activation (018): Activates relays or corresponding mechanisms in response to classification, implementing additional security measures or triggering alerts}; and
activating, by the ATM, the selected security measure {See previous citation to [0050]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Peng to include the features of Konrardy. Given that Peng is directed to damage detection in ATMs, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Konrardy, in order to facilitate detecting malfunctions, determining repairs, determining component operating status, or generally evaluating effectiveness or reliability of components and features {[0033] of Konrardy}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Peng and Konrardy to include the features of Serrão. Given that Peng is directed to damage detection in ATMs, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Serrão, in order to facilitate identifying and differentiating attempts to tamper with the ATM terminal from casual disturbances in the environment {[0026] of Serrão}.
Claims 2 and 10
Peng further discloses: wherein the damage detection sensor of the ATM includes at least one of a temperature sensor, an accelerometer, a magnetometer, a pressure sensor, a force sensor, a shock sensor, a tilt sensor, a humidity sensor, a microphone, or an infrared sensor / wherein the damage detection sensor of the ATM includes at least one of a temperature sensor, an accelerometer, a magnetometer, a pressure sensor, a force sensor, a sunlight sensor, a shock sensor, a tilt sensor, a humidity sensor, a sound sensor, or an infrared sensor {Col. 3, lines 19-40}.
Claims 4 and 11
Peng further discloses: wherein outputting the damage report includes outputting the type of damage, the type of damage including at least one of screen damage, media dispenser malfunction, or physical tampering {Col. 10, lines 50-60}.
Claims 6 and 12
Peng further discloses: wherein the damage detection sensor is further configured to monitor environmental conditions external to the ATM {Col. 1, lines 50-60}.
Claims 8 and 13
Peng further discloses: ATM {Col. 1, lines 5-15}
Konrardy further teaches: wherein the damage report further includes a unique identifier for the [device] {In embodiments, the smart home 187.1 may include a plurality of smart equipment (not depicted). The smart equipment may include appliances, electronics, electrical systems, gas systems, water systems, windows, doors, shutters, and so on configured to communicate with the smart home controller 185.1. Para. [0057].}. The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Konrardy being the same as set forth previously.
Claim 15
Konrardy further teaches: wherein the damage report further includes a timestamp of when the damage was detected {In response to receiving the indication, the controller 204 may create a timestamp (block 404). The timestamp may include information regarding the date, time, location, operating environment, condition, and autonomous operation feature settings or configuration information. Para. [0108]}. The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Konrardy being the same as set forth previously.
Claim 19
Peng further discloses: wherein the damage detection sensor is configured to detect physical contact with the ATM or to monitor at least one internal component of the ATM {Col. 10, lines 50-60}.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão, further in view of Satanal (US 20200388116).
Claim 3
The combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão, while teaching the features above, doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Satanal, in a similar field of endeavor directed to ATM technology, teaches: wherein the severity of the damage includes at least one of minor, moderate, or severe {The events may be defined, for example, as security, maintenance, emergency, operating, and other classifications. Para. [0055]. Examiner notes that security and/or maintenance and/or operating relate to minor or moderate information labels, while emergency corresponds to severe.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão to include the features of Satanal. Given that Peng is directed to damage detection in ATMs, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Satanal, in order to facilitate the monitoring of ATM security {[0050] of Satanal}.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão, further in view of Ramachandran (US 20040129772).
Claim 5
The combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão, while teaching the features above, doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Ramachandran, in a similar field of endeavor directed to ATM technology, teaches: wherein the damage report includes the indication to dispatch the technician based on the severity of the damage exceeding a first specified risk threshold or the type of damage exceeding a second specified risk threshold, and wherein the first and second specified risk thresholds are independently configurable {However, based on the one or more comparisons in step 142 the controller is operative to make a decision at step 144 as to whether the sensed value(s) compared to stored value(s) compared in step 142 have a difference that is in excess of one or more thresholds which suggest that an unauthorized card reading device has been installed. Para. [0082]. Examiner notes that the indication to dispatch a technician is simply an information label and doesn’t further define structurally and/or functionally, and the controller’s decision discussed in Ramachandran would indicate to a supervisor how to respond.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão to include the features of Ramachandran. Given that Peng is directed to damage detection in ATMs, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Ramachandran, in order to establish thresholds that facilitate technician dispatch based on ATM tampering {[0084] of Ramachandran}.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão, further in view of Hamchuck (US 11688251).
Claim 7
The combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão, while teaching the features above, doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Hamchuck, in a similar field of endeavor directed to ATM technology, teaches: wherein outputting the damage report includes outputting the recommended repair action, the recommended repair action including at least one of replacement of the ATM, recalibration of the ATM, or cleaning of the ATM {After calculating the compromise score, the status analysis circuit 124 communicates the compromise score to the notification circuit 128 to notify appropriate entities (e.g., user using user device 102, supplier of the ATM 106). Accordingly, the status analysis circuit 124 is communicably and operatively coupled to the notification circuit 128. In some arrangements, the notification circuit 128 is also structured to transmit a notification to an ATM supplier that an ATM 106 may have been compromised in order to send out a maintenance crew to repair or replace the ATM 106. Col. 14, lines 44-55.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão to include the features of Hamchuck. Given that Peng is directed to damage detection in ATMs, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Hamchuck, in order to facilitate the early repair or replacement of the ATMs, which in turn, limits the amount of users affected by such a compromise {Col. 4, lines 5-15 of Hamchuck}.
Claim 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão, further in view of Obert (US 20040204977).
Claim 14
The combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão, while teaching the features above, doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Obert, in a similar field of endeavor directed to parts replacement in ATMs, teaches: wherein to perform the damage assessment, the instructions further cause the processing circuitry to: access historical repair data of the ATM {Embodiments of OMS 100 may include service information database 228. Service information database 228 is configured to store information relating to the type of service provided, thereby creating a historical database of services provided to the various serviced devices. Para. [0057]}; calculate a remaining lifespan metric for the ATM based on the historical repair data {Continuing with this simplified, illustrative example, the Nth serviced component 110 may be a component that requires periodic replacement to ensure reliable, safe and/or continues operation of the first serviced device 102. For convenience, such a component is referred to herein as a maintenance component. The Nth detector is configured to sense, monitor or otherwise determine the usage of the Nth serviced component. When the service life reaches a predetermined threshold, a need for service signal is communicated by the Nth detector 118 to the processing system 114. Para. [0029].}; and include an indication to dispatch a technician in the damage report when the remaining lifespan metric falls below a specified threshold {Processing system 114 generates a service request signal that is communicated to the OMS 100. As will be described in greater detail hereinbelow, embodiments of the OMS 100 will effect a response to provide a replacement component in a timely manner. Para. [0029]. Accordingly, the OMS 100 initiates a response, in accordance with an entitlement under a service agreement, to cause a repair technician, and/or a repair component, to be dispatched to the first serviced device 102 so that the repair can be effected. Para. [0030]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão to include the features of Obert. Given that Peng is directed to damage detection in ATMs, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Obert, in order to streamline the replenishment of consumables and/or replacement of maintenance parts {Para. [0002] of Obert}.
Claim 16
The combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão, while teaching the features above, doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Obert, in a similar field of endeavor directed to parts replacement in ATMs, teaches: wherein the instructions further cause the processing circuitry to identify at least one set of potential repair actions based on the type of damage and the severity of the damage, and select from the at least one set of potential repair actions based on a specified criteria, the specified criteria corresponding to availability of at least one of a replacement part, a tool, or an available technician {For example, one exemplary response, under an entitlement, is that the consumable is to be replenished with a generic consumable and be provided by regular surface postal service. In another example, the entitlement is used to determine that the response is that the consumable is to be immediately replaced with a high grade consumable, and that a service technician or the like should be dispatched to replenish the consumable. Para. [0047]. Or, the OMS may communicate a message 232 to have the part sent directly to the technician or other specially qualified individual to ensure that the part is available before dispatching the technician or other specially qualified individual to the location of the serviced device. Para. [0048].}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão to include the features of Obert. Given that Peng is directed to damage detection in ATMs, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Obert, in order to streamline the replenishment of consumables and/or replacement of maintenance parts {Para. [0002] of Obert}.
Claim 18
The combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão, while teaching the features above, doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Obert, in a similar field of endeavor directed to parts replacement in ATMs, teaches: wherein the ATM further comprises a long-term storage including historical repair data for the ATM {Embodiments of OMS 100 may include service information database 228. Service information database 228 is configured to store information relating to the type of service provided, thereby creating a historical database of services provided to the various serviced devices. Para. [0057].}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão to include the features of Obert. Given that Peng is directed to damage detection in ATMs, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Obert, in order to streamline the replenishment of consumables and/or replacement of maintenance parts {Para. [0002] of Obert}.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão, further in view of Chesley (US 20250054375).
Claim 20
The combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão, while teaching the features above, doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Chesley, in a similar field of endeavor directed to ATM technology, teaches: wherein the damage report further comprises an indication of a prioritized recommended repair action and an assigned technician based on the severity of the damage or the type of damage {In certain embodiments, the dashboard module 304 may categorize, prioritize, highlight, arrange, or otherwise call out ATMs that have known issues, service/maintenance needs, or the like. For example, the dashboard module 304 may visually present ATMs with critical issues near the top of the list; may highlight ATMs with critical issues in red, bold text, blinking text; and/or the like. Other styles may be used to visually emphasize notices, notifications, issues, and/or the like associated with different ATMs. Para. [0073]. In certain embodiments, the messaging module 306 provides means for sending a message to a colleague, service technician, administrator, vendor, and/or other contact via the interface. Para. [0074].}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Peng, Konrardy, and Serrão to include the features of Chesley. Given that Peng is directed to damage detection in ATMs, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Chesley, in order to facilitate the assignment of follow-up maintenance tasks and/or more complex repairs performed by technicians {Para. [0003] of Chesley}.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's RCE submission filed 2/5/26 contains no additional remarks. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will expand on comments offered in response to applicant’s 1/20/26 after final remarks. Applicant’s headings and page numbers used for consistency.
The Rejection of Claims Under § 101
Applicant offers arguments regarding the outstanding rejections under 35 USC § 101 on pages 7-9 of the remarks. Applicant offers (citations to claim 1 omitted for brevity):
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to non- statutory subject matter. A prima facie case of abstractness under §101 cannot be maintained in light of the presently amended claims, USPTO Guidance, and Supreme Court precedent. Applicant submits that the present claims do not recite an abstract idea, and to the extent that any abstract ideas that were identified in the Office Action might apply to the present claims, that the present claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. For example, claim 1 recites:
[…]
The above recited elements of the claims are similar to those that were at issue in Thales Visionix Inc. V. US, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In Thales, the Federal Circuit held that claims requiring an inertial sensor on a tracked object and another sensor on a 'moving reference frame,' to track the motion were patent-eligible because they "seek to protect only the application of physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors." [Thales, paragraph 12]. The court emphasized that the combination of sensors working in coordination to perform technical functions cannot be reduced to abstract mental processes.
The Federal Circuit in Thales specifically rejected overly broad characterizations of technical processes, holding that claims were "not merely directed to the abstract idea of using 'mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame'. [Thales, paragraph 10]. Instead, the court found that "the claims are directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame." [Thales, paragraph 10].
Like Thales, the present claims require a plurality of sensors and a particular manner of using the data from the sensors to perform damage detection and assessment that cannot be performed mentally. The characterization in the Office Action of "data from a plurality of sensors" including for example "a temperature sensor, an accelerometer, a magnetometer, a pressure sensor, a tilt sensor, a microphone, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a gyroscope, a camera, a hall effect sensor, a force sensor, a capacitive sensor, a humidity sensor, an infrared sensor, a shock sensor, or the like" [Specification, 0011] as merely "observing and evaluating" that "could [be] perform[ed] with pen and paper" oversimplifies the claims and ignores the technological integration of the claimed elements. Additionally, the claims as now amended, recite that the ATM automatically selects a security measure from a plurality of security measures based on a combination of the determined type and severity, and then activates that selected security measure. This selection and activation of a security measure based on the type and severity represents a technological improvement to security of the ATM itself. The amended claims are not an abstract mental process or merely using a computer in its ordinary capacity. Rather, the claims integrate the damage assessment with automated control of a security measure.
While well taken, applicant’s remarks are not persuasive. Examiner is informed by MPEP 2106.05(a), which states:
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Examiner maintains that, based on MPEP 2106.05(f), applicant has not demonstrated an improvement to technology. Rather, applicant has “applied” computing elements and machinery, recited at a high level of generality, to the tasks of the abstract idea. The sensors are not recited at any level of specificity, contrary to applicant’s assertions. Any additional element is claimed in a results-oriented manner, and the specific mechanism for achieving the result is obscured.
Examiner further notes that the amendments include features that are still part of the abstract idea. Selecting and activating security measures, without further technical detail, are part of the rules or instructions that govern the selection and implementation of a security measure.
For these reasons, examiner maintains that the additional elements, whether viewed alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more.
The claims are ineligible.
The Rejection of Claims Under § 103
Applicant’s arguments are predicated on the present amendments. Based on applicant’s amendments, which modified the scope of the independent claims, examiner identified and applied new art. Instead of restating here, examiner directs applicant to the claim analysis above.
In summary, examiner has responded to all of applicant’s remarks and found them unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20110231705, which teaches: Thus, methods and apparatus for providing adaptive diagnostics for ATM fault conditions are provided. Such methods and apparatus may include one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a processor on a computer system, perform a method for diagnosing an electronic self-service device fault condition. The method may include receiving an input from a self-service device. The input may include information regarding a fault-related event. The method may also include assessing a plurality of system-level ramifications of the fault-related event. In response to the assessing, the method may further include determining continued viability of a plurality of ATM services. The method may also include electronically providing a notification of a list of remaining viable self-service device services.
US 20180033292, which teaches: Systems and methods for predicting and increasing the threat level at ATM centers prior to alarm event detection are provided. Some methods can include receiving a first signal from an ATM machine indicative of whether the ATM machine dispenses cash, receiving a second signal from a people counter indicative of persons entering or exiting a region in which the ATM machine is located, and responsive to the first signal or the second signal, determining whether to increase a threat level associated with the ATM machine irrespective of detecting an alarm event associated with the ATM machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629