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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/6/2024 and 5/1/2025 were filed before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
The claims filed 12/6/2024 are examined herein.
Claims 1-15 are pending and original.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are independent.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-15 are each directed to a system or method, and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 8 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claims 1 and 9. Claim 8 recites the limitations of:
8. A financial transaction method to be performed by a money handling apparatus that is operated by a customer and a remote conversation system, the financial transaction method comprising:
a remote conversation step of holding a remote conversation between the customer and a consultant attending to the customer via the remote conversation system;
an output step of outputting transaction information indicative of content of a money transaction determined in the remote conversation with use of the remote conversation system;
an obtaining step of obtaining the transaction information by the money handling apparatus; and
a transaction processing step of executing transaction processing by the money handling apparatus based on the transaction information.
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” in claim 8 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. Claims 1 and 9 are 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 1: money handling apparatus including transaction processor; remote conversation system; obtaining unit
Claim 8: money handling apparatus; remote conversation system
Claim 9: money handling apparatus including second processor; remote conversation system including first processor
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 1, 8, and 9 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 1, 8, and 9 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7 and 10-15 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 9 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 3 and 11 recite a portable terminal held by the customer. Dependent claims 4 and 12 recite a customer terminal included in the remote conversation system. Dependent claims 5 and 13 recite a consultant terminal included in the remote conversation system. 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 1-15 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 1-4 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guntupalli (US 2016/0019510 A1).
Examiner notes the single-reference rejection is made in view of the separate embodiments relied upon in the reference, as described below.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, Guntupalli discloses a financial transaction system and associated method comprising:
a money handling apparatus configured to be operated by a customer (see para. 0036);
an output unit/processor included in the remote conversation system and configured to output transaction information indicative of content of a money transaction determined in the remote conversation (see para. 0036);
an obtaining unit/processor included in the money handling apparatus and configured to obtain the transaction information (see para. 0037); and
a transaction processor included in the money handling apparatus and configured to execute transaction processing based on the transaction information (see para. 0037).
The embodiment disclosed by Guntupalli relied upon above does not explicitly disclose a remote conversation system enabling a remote conversation between the customer and a consultant attending to the customer. However, Guntupalli discloses, in a different embodiment, that the teller terminals may include a remote conversation system enabling a remote conversation between the customer and a consultant attending to the customer (see para. 0034).
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 first embodiment teller terminals of Guntupalli to include the feature of the other embodiment.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to facilitate transactions for visually challenged consumers (see Guntupalli, para. 0034).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Guntupalli discloses wherein: the output unit is configured to output graphics indicative of the content of the money transaction as the transaction information; and the obtaining unit is configured to obtain the transaction information by reading the graphics (see para. 0036).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Guntupalli discloses wherein: the output unit is configured to transmit the transaction information to a portable terminal held by the customer; and the obtaining unit is configured to obtain the transaction information from the portable terminal (see para. 0036).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Guntupalli 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 obtaining unit is configured to obtain the transaction information output by the output unit from the customer terminal (see para. 0034, 0036).
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guntupalli (US 2016/0019510 A1) in view of Pranger (US 2006/0004660 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Guntupalli discloses wherein the output unit is provided in at least the customer terminal (see para. 0036). Guntupalli does not explicitly disclose, but Pranger teaches a consultant terminal included in the remote conversation system and enabling the consultant to have the remote conversation with the customer (see para. 0038-0039, 0052).
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 Guntupalli to include the feature taught by Pranger.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to enable a customer to have a personal experience with a teller at a teller station while enabling the customer to remote perform transactions (see Pranger, para. 0038).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Guntupalli does not explicitly disclose, but Pranger teaches 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 para. 0034, 0038-0039, 0046).
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 Guntupalli to include the feature taught by Pranger.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to facilitate verbal requests for desired transactions (see Pranger, para. 0046).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Guntupalli does not explicitly disclose, but Pranger wherein the output unit is configured to output first customer information for identifying the customer who has had the remote conversation together with the transaction information, the financial transaction system further comprising: a person identification unit configured to obtain second customer information for identifying a person who is operating the money handling apparatus; and a comparing unit configured to compare the first customer information and the second customer information, wherein the transaction processor is configured to execute the transaction processing in response to the comparing unit determining that the first customer information and the second customer information match, and configured so as not to execute the transaction processing in response to the comparing unit determining that the first customer information and the second customer information do not match (see para. 0051, 0057).
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 Guntupalli to include the feature of Pranger.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to allow the teller to verify identification and signatures (see Pranger, para. 0058).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Phillips (US 2021/0357897 A1) discloses system, method, and computer program product embodiments for remote activation of an automated teller machine (ATM) to dispense cash to a customer. The customer may stage a transaction using a mobile application on a mobile device. Upon the staged transaction being authenticated and approved, the customer may visit the ATM. The customer may capture an image being displayed on a display of the ATM using a camera of the mobile device. The captured image may be sent to an application server from the mobile device. The application server may associate the ATM with the staged transaction that is staged using the mobile application, and send instructions to the ATM to dispense cash according to the staged transaction.
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