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 .
This Office Action responds to the amendment and argument filed on April 14, 2026, in response to the Office Action mailed on January 14, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The purpose of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is to ensure that the claims set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See MPEP §2173. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. See In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014).
Claim 1 recites: “...learning to balance multiple objectives to generate cash management recommendations wherein the multiple objectives include minimizing a total number of cash management actions, maintaining media levels within acceptable ranges for each terminal, optimizing timing of cash management activities to minimize disruptions to store operations, and considering an overall cash position of the store;”.
The terminology "balance multiple objectives" renders the scope of the claim indefinite because the claim fails to specify how the balancing is performed, what weighting methodology is employed, whether priorities are fixed or dynamic, or what optimization criteria govern the balancing process.
The phrase: “acceptable ranges”, is indefinite because the claim fails to define the bounds of the acceptable ranges, the criteria by which acceptability is determined, or whether such ranges vary by terminal, denomination, time interval, or operating condition.
The phrase: "overall cash position of the store", is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation refers to aggregate cash volume, denomination mix, forecasted liquidity, available reserves, cash utilization, or some other metric.
The phrase: “cash management recommendations”, is indefinite because the claim does not specify the nature of the recommendation, such as whether the recommendation comprises replenishment schedules, cash removal instructions, denomination allocations, service dispatch decisions, or other actions.
The phrase: “optimized cash management schedule”, is indefinite because optimization is a term of degree and the claim does not recite the metric being optimized, nor any objective function, threshold, or benchmark by which optimization is evaluated.
The phrase: “unexpected circumstances”, is indefinite because the claim provides no objective criteria defining what events constitute unexpected circumstances.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of claim 1. See MPEP §§2173.02, 2173.05(b), and 2173.05(c).
Claim 12 recites: “...generate optimal media baselines for transaction terminals...”
The term: “optimal media baselines”, is indefinite because the claim does not identify the parameter being optimized, the optimization function utilized, or the criteria for determining optimality. It is unclear whether optimality is measured with respect to:
replenishment frequency;
service cost;
cash availability;
shortage reduction;
liquidity targets;
utilization metrics; or
forecast accuracy.
Claim 12 additionally recites: “..while maintaining a minimum total media volume...”
The phrase: “minimum total media volume”, is indefinite because the claim does not define the basis for determining the minimum amount of media volume, whether the minimum is static or dynamic, or whether it is based upon demand forecasting, service levels, regulatory requirements, or inventory thresholds.
Claim 12 further recites: “...at the requested point in time...”
The antecedent basis and scope of the phrase: “requested point in time”, is unclear because the claim fails to specify whether the request originates from a user, scheduling system, terminal, machine learning model, or another component.
Claim 12 further recites: "...receiving, by a second MLM...". The relationship between the first MLM and the second MLM lacks clarity because the claim does not specify whether the models are independent, hierarchically related, jointly trained, or sequentially retrained.
Accordingly, claim 12 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
See MPEP §§2173.02 and 2173.05(e).
Claim 19 recites: “...training a media baseline machine learning model...” and “...training a media action scheduling MLM...”. However, the claim fails to recite sufficient structure or algorithmic limitations to define the scope of the claimed machine learning models.
The claim does not specify:
the learning paradigm employed;
whether supervised learning, reinforcement learning, unsupervised learning, or another technique is utilized;
the optimization criteria;
reward functions;
loss functions;
convergence conditions; or
update mechanisms.
Claim 19 further recites: “...cash management recommendations...” and “...optimized cash management schedule...”, for which the same indefiniteness concerns discussed with respect to claim 1 apply.
Specifically, the claim does not provide objective boundaries that would permit a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine with reasonable certainty what constitutes an optimized schedule or recommendation. Accordingly, claim 19 is indefinite. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014).
The dependent claims are also rejected based on their dependency on the independent claims.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claims to provide objective criteria, thresholds, measurable parameters, optimization functions, or otherwise clarifying the scope of the disputed terminology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejections.
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 ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights