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 .
Claim Status
The claims filed 4/29/2026 have been entered.
Claims 9-20 are pending.
Claims 9 and 20 are independent.
Claims 9-15 are currently amended.
Claims 16-20 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the current amendment.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues that the additional elements drawn to controlling the money handling apparatus based on a comparison of a result of matching first customer information with second information integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The argument is not persuasive. Controlling a transaction based on comparison of matching customer information falls under the abstract idea which is independently abstract. The additional elements drawn to using processors to perform this idea is merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Here, the additional elements are not indicative of an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Both the claims and specification describe the features at a high level of generality in a manner which does not convey an improvement to technology or another technical field to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim also recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how the solution to the problem is accomplished.
Applicant further argues that amended independent claim 9 provides an inventive concept because it performs a cross-check of customer information across two systems immediately prior to the transaction execution of the money handling apparatus and provides real-time verbal assistance in response to the success of the comparison.
The argument is not persuasive. The conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h) are carried over to Step 2B. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 10-20 rely on the arguments addressed above and are unpersuasive for the aforementioned reasons.
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 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 9-20 are each directed to a system, and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 9 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 20. Claim 9 recites the limitations of:
9. (Currently Amended) A financial transaction system comprising:
a money handling apparatus configured to be operated by a customer and configured to handle a money transaction by counting and recognizing money; and
a remote conversation system enabling a remote conversation between the customer and a consultant attending to the customer, the remote conversation being verbal communication,
wherein the remote conversation system includes:
a first processor configured to output transaction information indicative of the money transaction determined in the remote conversation and first customer information for identifying the customer who has had the remote conversation together with the transaction information,
acquisition circuitry configured to acquire second customer information for identifying the customer who operates the money handling apparatus,
a third processor configured to compare the first customer information output by the first processor and the second customer information acquired by the acquisition circuitry,
a microphone configured to connect with the third processor, and
a speaker configured to connect with the third processor, wherein the money handling apparatus includes:
a second processor configured to obtain the transaction information and to execute transaction processing based on the transaction information, and
wherein, in a case where the third processor determines that the first customer information and the second customer information match, the second processor executes the transaction processing through the microphone and the speaker via interactive and real-time communication as the remote conversation.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite a fundamental economic practice, as they set forth or describe processing of a financial transaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The “money handling apparatus” and “remote conversation system” (including circuitry, processor, microphone, and speaker components) in claim 9 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 20 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 9: money handling apparatus and remote conversation system (including circuitry, processor, microphone, and speaker components)
Claim 20: “money handling apparatus” and “remote conversation system” (including processor, microphone, and speaker components)
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 9 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0031] and [0041] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 9 and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 10-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 9 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claim 11 recites a portable terminal held by the customer. Dependent claim 12 recites a customer terminal included in the remote conversation system. Dependent claim 13 recites a consultant terminal included in the remote conversation system. Dependent claim 14 recites a remote controller included in the remote conversation system. Dependent claim 16 recites a camera. Dependent claim 17 recites a display. These additional elements are also recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 9-20 are not patent-eligible.
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 9-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins III (US 8,833,639 A1) in view of Eberhardt (US 2005/0131821 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Hopkins III discloses a financial transaction system comprising:
a money handling apparatus configured to be operated by a customer and configured to handle a money transaction by counting and recognizing money (see col. 8, ll. 16-43); and
a remote conversation system enabling a remote conversation between the customer and a consultant attending to the customer, the remote conversation being verbal communication (see cols. 11-12, ll. 57-19)
wherein the remote conversation system includes:
a first processor configured to output transaction information indicative of the money transaction determined in the remote conversation and first customer information for identifying the customer who has had the remote conversation together with the transaction information (see col. 11, ll. 16-56),
acquisition circuitry configured to acquire second customer information for identifying the customer who operates the money handling apparatus (see col. 7, ll. 34-41),
a microphone configured to connect with the third processor (see col. 7, ll. 34-41), and
a speaker configured to connect with the third processor (see col. 7, ll. 4-33),
wherein the money handling apparatus includes:
a second processor configured to obtain the transaction information and to execute transaction processing based on the transaction information (see cols. 11-12, ll. 16-19), and
the second processor executes the transaction processing through the microphone and the speaker via interactive and real-time communication as the remote conversation (see cols. 11-12, ll. 16-19).
Hopkins III discloses instructing the customer to provide an account card, a PIN, biometric data, a type of transaction desired and/or a variety of other information via the ATM 200 to the representative to assist in the transaction in order to assist in the transaction (see col. 11, ll. 27-31). Hopkins II does not explicitly disclose, but Eberhardt teaches a third processor configured to compare the first customer information output by the first processor and the second customer information acquired by the acquisition circuitry; and performing the transaction in a case where the third processor determines that the first customer information and the second customer information match (see paras. 0056-0059).
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 system of Hopkins III to include the feature taught by Eberhardt in order to ensure sufficient security as to the identity of the customer (see e.g., Eberhardt, para. 0069).
Regarding claim 10, Hopkins III discloses wherein: the first processor is configured to output graphics indicative of the money transaction as the transaction information; and the second processor is configured to obtain the transaction information by reading the graphics (see col. 11, ll. 16-56).
Regarding claim 12, Hopkins III discloses a customer terminal included in the remote conversation system, the customer terminal being capable of communicating with the money handling apparatus and enabling the customer to have the remote conversation with the consultant, wherein the second processor is configured to obtain the transaction information output by the first processor from the customer terminal (see col. 11, ll. 16-56).
Regarding claim 13, Hopkins III discloses a consultant terminal included in the remote conversation system and enabling the consultant to have the remote conversation with the customer, wherein the first processor is provided in at least one of the customer terminal and the consultant terminal (see col. 11, ll. 16-56).
Regarding claim 14, Hopkins III discloses a remote controller included in the remote conversation system, the remote controller being capable of communicating with the money handling apparatus and enabling the consultant to remotely operate the money handling apparatus (see col. 11, ll. 16-56).
Regarding claim 15, the combination set forth with regards to base claim 9 teaches the second processor is configured so as not to execute the transaction processing in response to the third processor determining that the first customer and the second customer information do not match (see Eberhardt, para. 0056-0059).
Regarding claim 16, the combination set forth with regards to the base claim 9 wherein the third processor is further configured to compare the first customer information and the second customer information based on the customer captured by the camera (see Hopkins III, see col. 11, ll. 16-56; Eberhardt para. 0056-0059, wherein the claim language “based on the customer captured by the camera” broadly encompasses the teleconferencing and verification of the customer taught by the combination; Notably, Eberhardt additionally teaches “Devices 9 which operate according to other biometric methods may also be used here” (see para. 0024).
Regarding claim 17, the combination set forth with regards to base claim 16 discloses a display connected to the third processor, wherein, in a case where the third processor determines that the first customer information and the second customer information match, the second processor executes the transaction processing through the microphone, the speaker, the camera, and the display via the interactive and real-time communication as the remote conversation (see Hopkins III, see col. 11, ll. 16-56; Eberhardt para. 0056-0059).
Regarding claim 18, Hopkins III discloses wherein: the money handling apparatus transmits information regarding an operation screen of the money handling apparatus to the remote conversation system, and the remote conversation system receives and displays the information regarding the operation screen to enable remote operation of the money handling apparatus via the first processor conversation (see Hopkins III, see col. 11, ll. 16-56).
Regarding claim 19, the combination set forth with regards to base claim 16 teaches wherein: the third processor is further configured to transmit a permission signal to the money handling apparatus in response to a determination result indicating a match being entered through an operation screen of the remote conversation system, and the second processor is further configured to execute the transaction processing in response to receiving the permission signal (see Eberhardt para. 0056-0059).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins III (US 8,833,639 A1) in view of Eberhardt (US 2005/0131821 A1), further in view of Guntupalli (US 2016/0019510 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hopkins III does not explicitly disclose, but Guntupalli teaches wherein: the first processor is configured to transmit the transaction information to a portable terminal held by the customer; and the second processor is configured to obtain the transaction information from the portable terminal (see para. 0036).
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 system of Hopkins III to include the features of Guntupalli to facilitate pre-stage transactions with mobile devices (see Guntupalli para. 0036).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Block (US 9,355,530 B1) discloses an automated banking machine operable to perform cash withdrawals. If a withdrawal is below a threshold, authorization is obtained from a first transaction authorization computer. If a withdrawal is greater than or equal to the threshold, a first portion of the cash is dispensed responsive to authorization from a first transaction authorization computer and a second portion of the cash amount is dispensed responsive to authorization from a second transaction authorization computer.
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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights