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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on April 8, 2026 cancelled no claims. Claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-20.
Claim Interpretation
The claim terms identified below have been given the following interpretations:
Automated teller machine (ATM): a computerized electronic machine that performs basic banking functions such as handling check deposits and issuing cash withdrawals (The applicant’s specification does not define the term ATM and as such the examiner has relied upon the Merriam-Webster online dictionary for the plain meaning of the term which is: a computerized electronic machine that performs basic banking functions (such as handling check deposits and issuing cash withdrawals). Should the applicant intend a broader interpretation of the term ATM, then the applicant needs to provide the examiner with support in the applicant’s disclosure which supports the claim ATM being something other than a special purpose computer that performs basic banking functions such as handling check deposits and issuing cash withdrawals. The examiner cautions the applicant that any interpretation of an ATM being a general-purpose computer would result in the claims being rejected under 35 USC 101 as reciting an abstract idea that is merely applied using a general purpose.)
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. However, the applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications (i.e., Application No. 148/235,302; and Application No. 16/148,739) fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Applicant states that this application is a continuation of the prior-filed application. A continuation application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application:
Original claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application recited “an automated teller machine (ATM)” performing the claimed steps “upon determining” “that a mobile device is within a threshold proximity of the ATM”. The examiner cannot find support for this limitation in the disclosure of Application No. 18/235,302 or the disclosure of Application No. 16/148,739. The closest disclosure of the ATM determining a threshold distance is found in paragraph 45-46 of Application No. 18/235,302 and paragraphs 44-45 of Application No. 16/148,739. However, these paragraphs merely support the ATM determining that the mobile device is in proximity to the ATM or determining that the mobile device is within a certain proximity of the ATM. However, based on these paragraphs the determination is not made based on threshold proximity, but based on the fact that the ATM is within a signal range of a short-range communication device, such as a near-field communication ("NFC") or radio frequency identification ("RFID") device. NFC has a maximum range of about 4 inches. The range of an RFID device is dependent on the type of RFID (i.e., low frequency RFID having a range of less than 4 inches and Active RFID having a range up to 328 feet) but the maximum range is approximately 328 feet. Thus, the certain proximity is based on the ability to receive the signal, and not based on a proximity threshold the ATM determines the mobile device to be within. While paragraph 45-46 of Application No. 18/235,302 and paragraphs 44-45 of Application No. 16/148,739 do disclose that location information can be provided to the ATM by an application executing on the mobile device (i.e., a short-range communication device in the mobile device) and determining that the mobile device is within a certain proximity of the ATM, the only example of such an interaction is when the application executing on the mobile device (i.e., short- range communication device in the mobile device) determines the mobile device is within a certain distance (e.g., threshold proximity) of the ATM, and transmit information to the ATM based on this determination. As such, the disclosures of Application No. 18/235,302 and Application No. 16/148,739 cannot be said to support the ATM determining a mobile device of a customer is within a threshold proximity of the ATM or upon determining that a mobile device of a customer is within a threshold proximity of the ATM, because there is no disclosure of the ATM using a “threshold” of any type, much less a “threshold proximity” to determine that mobile device is proximate to the ATM or within a certain proximity of the ATM. At best the disclosures of Application No. 18/235,302 and Application No. 16/148,739 support determine that a mobile device of a customer is proximate the ATM, and upon determining that the mobile device of the customer is proximate the ATM. As such, it is clear that the disclosure of the instant application introduces subject matter that is not support in the disclosures of Application No. 18/235,302 and Application No. 16/148,739, when it introduces the limitation requiring the claimed steps to be performed by the ATM upon the ATM “determining that a mobile device of a customer is within a threshold proximity of the ATM” in the originally filed claims (Examiner note: the originally filed claims are part of the disclosure of the instant application. See MPEP 2163(I)(B)).
Furthermore, the examiner cannot find support for “generate a push notification indicating that the customer is near the ATM where the customer can redeem the at least a portion of the real-time rewards balance that is expiring and an interactive user interface element configured to be interacted with by the customer on the mobile device to view a location of the ATM” in the disclosures of Application No. 18/235,302 or the disclosure of Application No. 16/148,739. Figure 9 and paragraphs 44 and 67-68 of Application No. 16/148,739, as well as figure 9 and paragraphs 45 and 68-69 of Application No. 18/235,302 support generating a push notification indicating that the customer is near the ATM where the customer can redeem the at least a portion of the real-time rewards balance that is expiring and a button configured to be interacted with by the customer on the mobile device to view a location of the ATM limitation”. However, neither the disclosure of Application No. 18/235,302 nor the disclosure of Application No. 16/148,739 can be said to support a post notification that includes “an interactive user interface element”. While a button is species of “interactive user interface element”, there are not a sufficient number of different species of interactive user interface elements in the disclosures of Application No. 18/235,302 or Application No. 16/148,739 to prove that the applicant had possession of the genus of any user interface element (see 112(a) written description rejection below). As such, the disclosures of Application No. 18/235,302 and Application No. 16/148,739 can only be said to support a post notification that includes a button. As such, it is clear that the disclosure of the instant application introduces subject matter that is not support in the disclosures of Application No. 18/235,302 and Application No. 16/148,739, when it introduces the limitation requiring the post notification to include “an interactive user interface element” in the originally filed claims (Examiner note: the originally filed claims are part of the disclosure of the instant application. See MPEP 2163(I)(B))
Please note that neither cancelling claims 1, 8, and/or 15, nor amending claims 1, 8, and/or 15 can correct this issue. The instant application must be changed to a continuation-in-part of Application No. 18/235,302. As per MPEP 211.05(I)(B):
“The disclosure of a continuation application must be the same as the disclosure of the prior-filed application; i.e., the continuation must not include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the original application. See MPEP § 201.07.”
“The disclosure of a continuation or divisional application cannot include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the prior-filed application.”
and, as per MPEP 2163:
“The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985).”
Thus, if Priority as a Continuation were to be granted by merely cancelling or amending the claims as originally filed to overcome the lack of support issue, then the applicant could later amend the specification to include the cancelled subject matter as per MPEP 2163(I)(B) because the subject matter was found in the claims as originally filed. This would result in the application maintaining the status as a Continuation and given the priority date of the original application, yet still require the entry of New Matter. As such, merely cancelling the claimed subject matter is not sufficient.
As the instant application cannot be a Continuation of Application No. 18/235,302 and is currently not a Continuation-in-part of Application No. 18/235,302, the priority date for the instant application is it filing date of October 02, 2024.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,776,000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant applicant merely remove limitations, broaden limitations and/or recite obvious variants of claims 1-17 in U.S. Patent No. 11,776,000.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,579. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant applicant merely remove limitations, broaden limitations and/or recite obvious variants of claims 1-20 in U.S. Patent No. 12,118,579.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed on April 8, 2026 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-20. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 have not been rejected under 35 USC 101. While the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 because they are directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, the claims transform the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. The applicant’s specification does not define the term ATM and as such the examiner has relied upon the Merriam-Webster online dictionary for the plain meaning of the term which is: a computerized electronic machine that performs basic banking functions (such as handling check deposits and issuing cash withdrawals). Thus, the ATM cannot be considered a general-purpose computer as it must be able to perform basic banking functions such as handling check deposits or issuing cash withdrawals. As such, the ATM is a special purpose computer with special purpose components such as slots for accepting checks inserted for deposit, bins for storing said checks once inserted into said slots, bins for storing cash, and a mechanism for dispensing said cash when withdraws are requested. The examiner has determined that such ATMs performing the functions of determining a mobile device of a customer is within a threshold proximity of the ATM (inherently required to be performed based on the “upon determining” step), receiving a rewards balance associated with the customer, determining that a portion of the rewards are expiring within a certain amount of time, and generating and a push notification that includes: an indication that the customer is near the ATM where the customer can redeem the at least a portion of the rewards that are expiring, and a button that can be pressed by the customer to view a location of the ATM; and transmitting the push notification to the mobile device of the customer is an improved ATM that operates in a manner different from traditional ATMs that transforms the abstract idea into practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or is considered ‘significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2b.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowed, if the applicant were to be able to overcome the Priority issues, and the Double Patenting rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner has found prior art (see Arumugam: US Patent 10,445,711 in at least column 4, lines 26-53 and column 7, lines 26-52) that disclose an automated teller machine (ATM), method executed by an ATM for generating a notification for a customer, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media executing on an ATM comprising:
a processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory structured to store instructions that are executable by the processor and cause the processing circuit to:
determine that a mobile device of a customer is within a certain proximity of the ATM;
upon determining that the mobile device of the customer is within a certain proximity of the ATM:
retrieve a real-time account balance of an account associated with a customer
retrieve a real-time message associated with the customer;
generate a push notification to be displayed on the mobile device of the customer, the push notification comprising: an indication that the customer is near the ATM, and a selectable user interface element configured to be pressed by the customer on the mobile device to connect to the ATM; and
transmit the push notification to the mobile device of the customer.
The examiner has also found prior art (see Lambert et al.: US Patent 10,242,382 in at least column 5, lines 15-24; column 8, lines 28-56; column 9, lines 10-27; column 9, line 63 through column 10, line 4) that discloses:
retrieving a real-time rewards balance of a rewards account associated with a customer;
determining that at least a portion of the real-time rewards balance is expiring within a certain amount of time;
generating a notification based on the at least a portion of the real-time rewards balance is expiring within the certain amount of time; and
transmitting the notification to the mobile device of a customer.
The examiner has also found prior art (see Arora et al.: PGPUB: 2017/0178462 in at least paragraph 44) that discloses:
an ATM machine where the customer can redeem the at least a portion of the real-time rewards balance that is expiring.
The examiner has also found prior art (see Vltavsky: US Patent 9,380,421 in at least column 3, lines 31-46 and column 8, line 47 through column 9, line 13) which discloses:
a button configured to be pressed by the customer on the mobile device to view a location of the ATM
Thus, it is clear that each and every limitation claimed is present in the prior art. However, the examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these four different references to arrive at the claimed invention without the use of the applicant’s claims as a roadmap and, thereby, using impermissible hindsight. As such, claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the Priority issues and the Double Patenting rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues, with respect to the priority issue, that application 18/235,302 supports the “threshold proximity” and the “interactive user interface element” recited in the originally filed claims, but provides no indication exactly where in the disclosure of the prior filed applications such support can be found. Thus, the applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that such support exists. Whereas, the examiner has identified the specific disclosures in application 18/235,302 that merely support the mobile device being in proximity to the ATM or being withing a certain proximity of the ATM, wherein the certain proximity is based on the range of the wireless technology being used. None of these disclosures indicate the establishment of a threshold, nor the use of such a threshold to determine the mobile device is in proximity to the ATM. As such, the applicant’s argument with regards to “threshold proximity” is not convincing. The examiner has also identified as the specific disclosures in application 18/235,302 that support a push notification including button that is displayed on the mobile device, wherein a user interaction with the button allows the user to view the location of the ATM. This is the only type of interaction with the displayed push notification that results in the user viewing the location of the ATM. As such, the prior applications do not support the broader genus of a push notification including all manner of interactive user interfaces. As such, the applicant’s argument with regards to “threshold proximity” is not convincing.
The applicant argues that merely amending the claims should overcome the priority issue. The examiner disagrees. It is true that if the applicant were to change the instant application to a Continuation-in-part, and to remove any limitations which are not supported by application 18/235,302 would result in the instant application being granted the earlier prior date. However, by maintaining the instant application as a Continuation and removing the limitations which are not supported by application 18/235,302 does not overcome the prior issue. This is because the originally filed claims are considered part of the original disclosure of the instant application. No amendment to the claims after the original filling date can change the content of the original disclosure (see MPEP 211.05(I)(B); MPEP § 201.07; MPEP 2163(I)(B); and 2163.06(III)). Furthermore, the decision in In Re Edward L. Benno is precisely what the applicant cannot correct the priority issue without changing the instant application to a Continuation-in-Part. As made clear in the decision, the original claims are part of the original disclosure and an applicant may amend the specification of the instant application to include limitations found only in the original claims. However, the decision does not indicate that the applicant can amend the earlier specification to include subject matter only found in the claims of a later filed application. Thus, in the instant case the disclosure in 18/235,302 does not support the limitations, but the applicant can at any time amend the specification of the instant application to include the limitations found in the original claims of the instant application. The applicant’s removal of the limitations by amendment does not remove the ability of them to amend the specification of the instant application to include such subject matter. Therefore, the amendment does not correct the priority issue. As such, the position of the examiner is clearly supported by the MPEP and case law. If Priority as a Continuation were to be granted by merely cancelling the claims as originally filed to overcome the lack of support issue, then the applicant could later amend the specification to include the cancelled subject matter as per MPEP 2163(I)(B) because the subject matter was found in the claims as originally filed. This would result in the application maintaining the status as a Continuation and given the priority date of the original application, yet still allow for the entry of such new matter in the specification. As such, merely cancelling the claimed subject matter is not sufficient. Hence, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
The applicant argues that under the Office’s rational, any Continuation Application subject to a rejection under 35 USC 112(a) in a first-issued Office Action would automatically lose its priority claim to the parent application and would be unable to reclaim that priority via claim amendment is inconsistent with controlling authority. This argument appears to be based on the applicant either misconstruing the priority issue raised by the examiner and/or the controlling authority, which the examiner takes to mean the MPEP and precedential case law.
First, an application which is a Continuation of a prior application need not be rejected under 35 USC 112(a), written description for the priority issue to be raised. If you note in the Office Action dated December 8, 2025, the examiner did not raise a 112(a) issue with regards to the “threshold proximity” limitation. Yet this limitation is not supported in the prior application. This is because the term “threshold” is a sufficient disclosure for one or ordinary skill in the art to implement in the manner claimed in the original claims. While the term is broad and can include any threshold proximity, the difference is merely a matter of a number representing a distance. Since, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to write a program for X distance, they would be able to easily modify the program to work for Y distance. As such, the term “threshold” is sufficient to support itself, and need not be described in the specification for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the priority issue with regard to the limitation “threshold distance” exists despite it not being rejected under 35 USC 112(a), written description.
Second, only the limitation in the office action dated December 8, 2025 rejected under 35 USC 112(a), written description was “an interactive user interface element configured to be interacted with by the customer on the mobile device to view a location of the ATM”. As detailed in the rejection, the “interactive user interface” is a genus term that covers every possible type of interactive user interface. Broad functional language such as this in the originally filed claims requires the specification to have sufficient detail to prove that that applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, one must look to the specification to determine whether it has enough different species of specific interactive user interfaces to prove possession of the claimed genus. In the instant case the specification only had support for a push notification that includes a button which, when operated by the user, displays the location of the ATM. The disclosure of a single species of an interface able to be operated by a user to display the location of the ATM, is insufficient to prove that the applicant had support for all possible interactive user interfaces which when operated by a user displays the location of the ATM, because there are a plurality of different interfaces which can be used to display the location of an ATM and each would need to be programmed in a different manner to operate. As such, the limitation “an interactive user interface element configured to be interacted with by the customer on the mobile device to view a location of the ATM” has been properly rejected under 35 USC 112(a), as well as, raise the priority issue. Had the limitation not raised a 35 USC 112(a), written description rejection it would still have resulted in the same priority issue that the term “threshold proximity” resulted in. As such, one need not reject such limitation under 35 USC 112(a), written description for the priority issue to be raised.
Third, the applicant is correct that any proper rejection under 35 USC 112(a) in a first-issued Office Action should also be accompanied with an identification of a priority issue based on MPEP 211.05, and that the raising of the priority issue would automatically result in an application, which is a Continuation losing lose its priority claim to the parent application. This is because MPEP 211.05(I)(B) requires that “The disclosure of a continuation application must be the same as the disclosure of the prior-filed application; i.e., the continuation must not include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the original application”, and “The disclosure of a continuation or divisional application cannot include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the prior-filed application”.
Fourth, the applicant’s is correct that the application is unable to reclaim that priority via claim amendments is also correct. A claim amendment is not able to correct the priority issue. MPEP 211.05(I)(B); MPEP § 201.07; MPEP 2163(I)(B); and 2163.06(III), as well as, the decision in In Re Edward L. Benno preclude an amendment to the claims from correcting the priority issue. However, this does not mean that the application is unable to reclaim the priority to the earlier filed application. As made clear in MPEP 211.05(I)(B), the application can reclaim the priority of the earlier filed application by changing the application to a Continuation-in-Part and amending the claims to remove all limitations which are not supported by the earlier application. As such, the Office’s rationale is entire consistent with the controlling authority, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing, and the priority issue has been maintained.
The applicant’s response to the Double Patenting rejection was non-responsive. While the examiner could have issued a Notice of Non-Responsive Amendment, in an order to further the prosecution of the case, he is instead warning the applicant with regards to the requirements of the MPEP with regards to Double Patenting Rejections. As per 37 CFR 1.111, "In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action". While, 37 CFR 1.111 allows for a request to "be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated", a Double Patenting rejection is not an objection or requirement as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims as noted in MPEP 804 (B)(1) "filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance." As such, a failure to address the Double Patenting rejection in future correspondence is likely to result in a Notice of Non-Responsive Amendment. The applicant can properly address the Double Patenting rejection by either filing a Terminal Disclaimer or providing specific arguments why one or more limitations in the claims, as amended, are not an obvious variant of the claims in the identified patent. Merely, amending the claims to recite a new limitation and/or slightly modifying a claim term followed by a statement indicating that the applicant believes the Double Patenting rejection cannot be maintained over the claims as currently amended is not sufficient. The applicant needs to provide specific arguments as to why said limitation would not be an obvious variant of the claims in the identified patent. However, should the applicant present such a convincing argument, then the claims of the instant application would also not be obvious variants of the claims of the previous application and/or patent, then it is likely they would also not be obvious variants of the claims of the instant application for which the examiner has issued an Office Action. This is because said previously examined claims were obvious variants of the previous application and/or patent. Thus, a successful argument regarding amended claims not being obvious variants of the previous application and/or patent is likely to result in Restriction by Original Presentation for the newly amended claims in the instant application. Given that the applicant has provided no specific argument as to why the claims as amended are not obvious variants of Patent No. 11,776,000 and Patent No.12,118,579, the Double Patenting rejection has been maintained.
The applicant’s argument with regards to the 35 USC 112(a) are moot as the claim amendment has overcome the rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ameiss et al. (CA2736215) which discloses a reward system that retrieves real-time rewards balances of customers, determines that a portion of the rewards are expiring within a certain amount of time, generates a notification based on the determination, and transmits a notification to a mobile device of a customer.
Taylor et al. (US 8,408,455) which discloses an ATM machine that allows customers to access rewards accounts and perform actions on the rewards account including balance inquiries, withdrawals, redemptions, and transfers.
Iqbal et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0287018) which discloses an ATM for loyalty and financial accounts requiring one or more authentication factor that detects a mobile device when it is in proximity to the ATM.
Francis et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0074569) which discloses a loyalty/rewards program that receives an indication that the customer has entered a predefined merchant location and transmits a notification to the mobile device of the customer, wherein the notification is determined based on consumer use, preferences, and/or behavior, and the notification can include an earned reward, a reward threshold, or an expiring reward.
Samuely (Citibank commits to beacons after merchants give the technology thumbs-up, 2017, https://www.retaildive.com/ex/mobilecommercedaily/citibank-commits-to-beacons-after-merchants-give-the-technology-a-thumbs-up, pgs. 1-7) which discloses determining that a mobile device is within proximity of an ATM and providing a notification to he mobile device based on the determination; and card-free ATM machines that allow the user to interact with the ATM using their mobile devices to withdraw funds and complete other financial transactions.
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 JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 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, Spar Ilana can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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 Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights