DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Feb. 11, 2025, and is made Non-Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Interviews conducted solely for the purpose of “sounding out” the examiner, including by local counsel acting only as a conduit for another practitioner, are not permitted under MPEP § 713.03. The Office is strictly enforcing established interview practice, and applicants should ensure that every interview request is directed toward advancing prosecution on the merits in compliance with MPEP §§ 713 and 713.03.
For after-final Interview requests, supervisory approval is required before an interview may be granted. Each AIR should specifically explain how the After-Final Interview request will advance prosecution—for example, by identifying targeted arguments responsive to the rejection of record, alleged defects in the examiner’s analysis, proposed claim amendments, or another concrete basis for discussion. See MPEP § 713. If the AIR form’s character limits prevent inclusion of all pertinent details, Applicants may send a contemporaneous email to the examiner at James.Miller1@uspto.gov.
The examiner is generally available Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.
For any GRANTED Interview Request, Applicant can expect an email within 24 hours confirming an interview slot from the dates/times proposed and providing collaboration tool access instructions. For any DENIED Interview Request, the record will include a communication explaining the reason for the denial.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1–10 are pending and examined with Claims 1 and 8 in independent form.
This is a first action on the merits.
Disclosure Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Abstract: The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to for exceeding 150 words. Correction is required. MPEP § 608.01(b). An electronic word count indicates 153 words.
Specification, ¶ 59: It is believed that “The analytic module 316” is “The analytic module 308” as indicated in Fig. 3.
Claim Objections
Claims 1and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 8: It is believed that “characterized in that,” recited in both Claims 1 and 8 is a typographical error.
Claim Interpretation
Consideration was given to interpreting “sensor unit” under § 112(f) but was not. The claim does not use “means for,” but instead recites “a piggy bank … configured to detect, using a sensor unit, a deposition of currency,” which reads as a structural component performing a function, not a “means for detecting” formulation that triggers the presumption of §112(f). The specification provides explicit structural examples of the “sensor unit 110,” including that it “may be at least one of infra-red IR sensor, optical sensor, weight sensor, capacitive sensor, or magnetic sensor” and “[i]n some embodiments, the sensor unit 110 is infra-red IR sensor” positioned near the currency entry slot. Spec. ¶ 33. Under Williamson, the presumption against §112(f) applies because the claims do not use “means” and the term “sensor unit” itself conveys sufficient structure (i.e., a class of well understood hardware sensors), especially in view of the specification’s identification of specific sensor types and mounting/location. Spec. ¶¶ 32, 33, 34.
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 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1–10 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1–7 recite a “system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Clams 8–10 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.”
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative [“Rep. Claim 1”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations1 and underline, as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception:
[A] 1. A system for monitoring activities of children to foster financial management skills in children, wherein the system comprising: a piggy bank [computer] that is associated with a child and is configured to:
[B] detect, using a sensor unit, a deposition of currency, when the currency is inserted by the child into a currency entry slot, wherein the currency comprises at least one of coins or banknotes;
[C] activate, by a microcontroller, a relay switch and a motor to receive the currency, when the deposition of the currency is detected by the sensor unit;
[D] calculate, by the microcontroller, an amount of the currency by analyzing characteristics of the currency using an image processing technique to obtain an analysed data and comparing the analysed data with pre-defined profiles of different currency types to identify the amount of the currency; characterized in that,
[E] generate, by the microcontroller, a currency deposit request by including the amount of the currency in a structured deposit request, when the child submits a first approval request through an interactive display for currency deposit;
[F] communicate, by the microcontroller, the currency deposit request to a user device associated with a parent/guardian of the child through a server, wherein the user device receives the currency deposit request from the server through a user interface and enables the parent/guardian to approve the currency deposit request; and
[G] credit, by the microcontroller, the currency into the piggy bank by updating a balance of the piggy bank associated with the child based on the received currency, when the currency deposit request is approved by the parent/guardian, thereby monitoring the activities of the children to foster financial management skills in children.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 1 recites “monitoring activities of children to foster financial management skills in children” in the preamble, Limitation A and “monitoring the activities of the children to foster financial management skills in children” in Limitation G, which recites which recites a fundamental economic principle/practice under the organizing human activity exception because said Limitations describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce, such as “financial management,” a practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory money management or accounting class. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The financial management skills being old and well known “indicates that the practice is fundamental.” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The category of abstract ideas embraces ‘fundamental economic practice[s] long prevalent in our system of commerce,’ … including ‘longstanding commercial practice[s]’"). Limitations B–G are the required steps to “monitoring the activities of the children to foster financial management skills in children” and therefore, recites the same exception. Id.
Alternatively2, Limitations B–G, as drafted, recite the abstract idea exception of mental processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of the generic computer components indicated in bold. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
. . .
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, but for the generic computer components claim language, here, Limitations B–G, recite collecting information (Limitations B, C, F), and analyzing it (Limitations D, E, G), where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. For example, Limitation D is a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to calculate an amount of currency by analyzing characteristics of the currency using an image processing technique, such as sight. Collecting and comparing known information (i.e., “an amount of the currency” to “different currency types”) are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind under Classen. Limitation D covers any solution to “calculate an amount of currency by analyzing characteristics of the currency using an image processing technique … and comparing the analysed data with pre-defined profiles of different currency types to identify the amount of the currency” with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is so broad as to encompass mental processes. Limitation E is a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to “generate … a currency deposit request by including the amount of the currency in a structured deposit request” and “submit[ting] a first approval request … for currency deposit.” Limitation E covers any solution to “generate … a currency deposit request by including the amount of the currency in a structured deposit request” and “submit[ting] a first approval request … for currency deposit” with no restriction on how the “generating” is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is so broad as to encompass mental processes. Likewise, Limitation G is a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” to “credit the currency into the piggy bank by updating a balance of the piggy bank associated with the child based on the received currency, when the currency deposit request is approved by the parent/guardian” Limitation G covers any solution to “credit the currency into the piggy bank by updating a balance of the piggy bank associated with the child based on the received currency, when the currency deposit request is approved by the parent/guardian” with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is so broad as to encompass mental processes.
If a claim limitation under BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the pending claims recite the combination of these abstract idea exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Rep. Claim 1 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: A system comprising: a piggy bank [computer], a sensor unit, a microcontroller, a relay switch, a motor, an image processing technique, an interactive display, a user device with a user interface, and a server.
Regarding the system comprising: a piggy bank [computer], a sensor unit, a microcontroller, a relay switch, a motor, an image processing technique, an interactive display, a user device with a user interface, and a server, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them or describes them using exemplary language as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”).
Specifically, the specification describes each of these components either by naming well-known exemplary types (e.g., "Raspberry Pi," "IR sensor," "LCD screen," "mobile phone," "cloud") or by depicting a standard general-purpose computer architecture (¶ 71, FIG. 9), without indicating that any of these hardware or software elements are themselves novel. E.g., Spec. ¶ 32 (introducing the “system 100” and identifying all hardware components of the “piggy bank 102” as an assembly of computer components. Each component is listed by name and reference numeral without any special or non-conventional structural elaboration, consistent with treating them as well-known components.); ¶ 33 (describing the “sensor unit 110” using exemplary, generic language); ¶ 34 (describing the “microcontroller 118” as a known (i.e., “Raspberry Pi”) computing platform. The “relay switch 112” is described generically as "an electronic switch to control the motor 114" and the “motor 114” is described as configured "to pull the currency into the piggy bank 102," with exemplary actions such as "rotate a sorting mechanism, open a trapdoor, or move an arm" for coins, and "engage rollers or a conveyor to pull the banknotes" for banknotes. All are described using well-known, generic hardware terminology.); ¶ 35 (describing the “image processing technique” in generic functional terms. The technique is not described as any novel algorithm but rather as a well-known approach to analyzing visual characteristics (diameter, thickness, color, edge pattern, embossed markings, serial number, denomination value, size, color pattern, and security features).); ¶ 36 (describing the “interactive display 116” using exemplary language and using well-known, generic display types); ¶ 37 (describing “user device 106” using a list of known generic devices. The “server 104” is similarly described generically.); ¶ 38 (describing the “user interface” in generic terms. The server is further described generically using a known list of generic devices); ¶ 71 (describing a “representative hardware environment” for the server/computer system, expressly described using generic, well-known computer components and a textbook-style depiction of a general-purpose computer.)
The generic processor, here, appears to perform calculations (functions) that are programmed by software. Spec. ¶ 49. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow.
Limitation A describes the system and piggy bank performing the steps of the claimed invention. This takes generic hardware and describes the functions of receiving, storing, and sending data (instructions) between the processor and memory device, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Limitations B–G describe the system and piggy bank performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Rep. Claim 1 is not substantially different than Independent Claim 8 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claim 8 contains no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claim 8 is also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 1 fails Step 2B because the claim as whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The pending claims in their combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents a currently available generic computer technology, used in the way in which it is commonly used (individually generic). Last, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements is not inventive. Spec., ¶ 72 (steps/functions may be performed in any order); ¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 49, 71, 72, Fig. 9 (known and generic (exemplary) computer equipment as explained and cited supra.)
Thus, Examiner finds the additional elements of Rep. Claim 1 are elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure3. Spec. ¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 49, 71, 72, Fig. 9; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Specifically, Applicant’s Specification discloses the recited additional elements (i.e., the system comprising: a piggy bank [computer], a sensor unit, a microcontroller, a relay switch, a motor, an image processing technique, an interactive display, a user device with a user interface, and a server) are limited to generic computer components. These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) on a known computer and computer-related components. The Examiner also finds the functions of detecting, activating, calculating, generating, communicating, and crediting, data, described in Limitations A–G are all normal functions of a generic computer.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea at a high level of generality. Thus, Rep. Claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept.
Rep. Claim 1 is not substantially different than Independent Claim 8 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1 Independent Claim 8 contains no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claim 8 also does not recite an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 3, 7, and 10 all recite “wherein” clauses that further limits the abstract idea of the Independent Claims but contains the additional elements of: a lock mechanism (Claims 3, 10), a chip card (Claim 7), and a fingerprint sensor (Claim 7). For the same reasoning as the other computer components in Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, supra, these additional elements do not provide a practical application or inventive concept because it is amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception with a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The components are generic and known in the prior art. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 14, 15, 34, 45, 55, 66, 67. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Conclusion
Claims 1–10 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 1 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
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, 2, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods (U.S. Pat. No. 6,454,570) [“Woods”] in view of Marx et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0379576) [“Marx”] and further in view of Osterberg et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0210149).
Regarding Claim 1, Woods discloses:
A system for monitoring activities of children to foster financial management skills in children, wherein the system comprising:
(See at least col. 1:44–52, “According to a first aspect of the present invention, there is provided an educational banking apparatus comprising a compartment for storing money, input means to allow money to be deposited into apparatus and output means to allow money to be removed from the apparatus, characterized by balance determination means for determining the amount of money stored in the apparatus and communications means to allow transfer of balance information to a remote location.” See also, Abstract. Col. 4:56–7, “The bank can then provide statements in the normal way,” which is monitoring activities of children.)
a piggy bank that is associated with a child and is configured to:
(See at least col. 2:12–4, “The savings apparatus is preferably in a form which appeals to children such as in the form of the traditional piggy-bank.” Fig. 1 (piggy bank).)
detect, using a sensor unit [coin sensor 32], a deposition of currency, when the currency is inserted by the child into a currency entry slot, wherein the currency comprises at least one of coins or banknotes;
(See at least col. 4:15–7, “When a coin is inserted into the slot 12 (FIG. 1) the coin sensor 32 determines the value of the coin and transmits this to the microprocessor 30.” Fig. 1 (disclosing “coins” (element 22) being inserted into a “currency entry slot” (element 12).).
activate, by a microcontroller, a relay switch and a motor [solenoid] to receive the currency, when the deposition of the currency is detected by the sensor unit [coin sensor 32];
(See at least col. 4:15–22, “When a coin is inserted into the slot 12 (FIG. 1) the coin sensor 32 determines the value of the coin and transmits this to the microprocessor 30. The microprocessor reads the current balance from the RAM 36 and increases that balance by an amount corresponding to the value of the coin. The microprocessor also instructs the sound circuit 44 and the light controller 42 to provide positive, optimistic sounds and lighting effects respectively.” Col. 3:44–5, “The device includes a money entry slot 12.” Col. 4:36–8, “Internally, the device comprises a separate compartment for each denomination of coin. Entry to and exit from these compartments may be by way of solenoid-controlled flaps.” Col. 4:24–7, “When it is desired to remove cash from the storage device the microprocessor activates the cash output circuit 40 which causes a coin or coins to issue from the slot 14 (FIG. 1).” The solenoid-controlled flaps are activated when coins are received and directed to a “separate compartment for each denomination of coin.” The solenoid-controlled flaps are the claimed relay switch and motor under BRI. The solenoid (motors) are turned off or on to route coins to a “separate compartment for each denomination of coin.”).
calculate, by the microcontroller, an amount of the currency by analyzing characteristics of the currency [… See, Osterberg];
(See at least col. 4:15–22, “When a coin is inserted into the slot 12 (FIG. 1) the coin sensor 32 determines the value of the coin and transmits this to the microprocessor 30. The microprocessor reads the current balance from the RAM 36 and increases that balance by an amount corresponding to the value of the coin.” Col. 4:8–14, “As a potentially cheaper alternative, the device could be provided with a weight sensor to weigh the currency stored. When money is inserted the new weight minus the old weight (stored in RAM 36) gives the weight of the new coin whose value can then be determined. The opposite occurs in response to a withdrawal.”)
characterized in that, [sic]
generate, by the microcontroller, a currency deposit request by including the amount of the currency in a structured deposit request, […, See Marx];
(See at least col. 3:67–4:2, “A microprocessor 30 is connected to the following peripherals: a coin sensor 32, a read only memory (ROM) 34, a random access memory (RAM) 36.” Col. 4:17–20, “The microprocessor reads the current balance from the RAM 36 and increases that balance by an amount corresponding to the value of the coin.” Col. 4:50–1, “the device will transmit the current balance stored in RAM 36 to the bank's computer via the 1/0 circuit 46.” Col. 4:53–6, “The bank's computer increases or reduces the relevant balance in the same way as it would for a "normal" withdrawal or deposit communicated via electronic channels.” Col. 4:15–7, “When a coin is inserted into the slot 12 (FIG. 1) the coin sensor 32 determines the value of the coin and transmits this to the microprocessor 30. The microprocessor reads the current balance from the RAM 36 and increases that balance.” Col. 2:33–5, “communication means for communicating account information between the storage device and the remote banking institution.” Col. 4:48–51, “Periodically, either in response to a signal received via I/O circuit 46 or following a signal from an internal timer (not shown) the device will transmit the current balance stored in RAM 36 to the bank's computer via the I/O circuit 46.” Claim 10, “communicating the account balance information from the customer location to the account holding banking institution over the communications network to apply to an account of the customer,” which is the structured deposit request because internet communication requires structured protocols (TCP/IP) and the transmission contains structured data (i.e., balance amount and account identifier). Col. 5:3–8, “At step S16 the device determines whether money is being inserted. If yes, processing proceeds to step Sl8 at which the balance in the RAM (36, FIG. 2) is updated. Processing proceeds to step S20 at which the audio/visual consequences of a money deposit are activated.”)
communicate, by the microcontroller, the currency deposit request to a [remote banking computer] associated with a parent/guardian of the child through a server, wherein the [remote banking computer] receives the currency deposit request from the server [… See, Marx]; and
(See at least col. 1:44–52, “According to a first aspect of the present invention, there is provided an educational banking apparatus … and communications means to allow transfer of balance information to a remote location.” Col. 2:1–3, “The communication link with the bank's computer may be via a number of different channels, but access via the Internet is preferred.” Col. 4:48–51, “Periodically, either in response to a signal received via I/O circuit 46 or following a signal from an internal timer (not shown) the device will transmit the current balance stored in RAM 36 to the bank's computer via the I/O circuit 46.” Col. 4:57–5:1, “a parent or guardian will open the account on the child's behalf”
credit, by the microcontroller, the currency into the piggy bank by updating a balance of the piggy bank associated with the child based on the received currency, […, See Marx], thereby monitoring the activities of the children to foster financial management skills in children.
(See at least col. 3:58–60, “The device also includes means (not shown) for maintaining a balance of the coinage currently stored within the device.” Col. 4:15–9, “When a coin is inserted into the slot 12 (FIG. 1) the coin sensor 32 determines the value of the coin and transmits this to the microprocessor 30. The microprocessor reads the current balance from the RAM 36 and increases that balance by an amount corresponding to the value of the coin.” Col. 2:12–5, “The savings apparatus is preferably in a form which appeals to children such as in the form of the traditional piggy-bank.”)
Woods discloses detection of “money in,” internal updating of a balance, and a child sending the deposit balance information to the bank. Woods does not disclose a child “approval request” via an interactive display. Woods discloses communicating a deposit balance over the “Internet” to a remote banking computer (server) and the remote banking computer (server) receiving and updating account balance information associated with a parent/guardian of the child. Woods does not disclose a separate “user device” for a parent/guardian and the approval step at the user device. Woods discloses that the microprocessor maintains and updates a stored balance as coins are inserted and withdrawn and that this balance is also maintained at the remote bank. Woods does not disclose parental approval is required to perform a transaction. Thus, Woods does not disclose but Marx discloses:
generate, by a microprocessor [processor, Claim 1], a currency deposit request [online fund transfer] by including the amount of the currency in a structured deposit request, when the child submits a first approval request through an interactive display for currency deposit [online fund transfer];
(The second [child] user initiates an payment request or “online fund transfer” (¶ 12). See at least ¶ 5, “a parent may grant his or her child access to the parent's payment account, such that the child may purchase any necessities in the parent's absence” and “receive a payment request initiated by the secondary user [child] for making a payment transaction using the payment account” (Claim 1). The payment request functions as an approval request because it “may be delayed for a specified period of time until approval from the primary user is received” (¶ 12). “The secondary user may make an online purchase or a fund transfer using the payment account. The purchase may be at a physical point of sale, such as at a merchant location, online through a user's PC or other computing device, or through a mobile app on the user's mobile device” (¶ 19). Online purchases and fund transfers require interactive displays (computer screen, mobile device screen). Fund transfers into an account are currency deposits. The “payment transaction” encompasses deposits (credits to account) and payments (debits from accounts) (¶ 19). Claim 7, “wherein the type of the payment transaction includes at least one of an amount of the payment transaction, a type of merchant, and a type of purchased item.” A payment request or funds transfer requires a structured format to communicate transaction details including amount, account information, and transaction type through the payment processing system.
communicate, by the microcontroller [processor, Claim 1], the currency deposit [online fund transfer] request to a user device associated with a parent/guardian of the child through a server [payment provider server 370], wherein the user device receives the currency deposit request [online fund transfer] from the server through a user interface and enables the parent/guardian to approve the currency deposit request [online fund transfer]; and
(Examiner interprets this limitation as “communicate, by the microcontroller, the currency deposit request, through a server, to a user device associated with a parent/guardian of the child interaction. "[P]rocess the payment transaction when an approval from the primary user is received" (Claim 1). The primary user (parent) "may approve or disapprove the request by replying to the approval request, such as by text or voice" (¶ 24). Specifically: "the primary user may reply to the text message with 'YES', 'OK', or 'NO'" ( ¶ 24).. The system enables the parent to provide approval, and "the service provider may determine whether the primary user approves the transaction based on the primary user's response" (¶ 24).)
when the currency deposit request [online fund transfer] is approved by the parent/guardian
("[P]rocess the payment transaction when an approval from the primary user is received" (Claim 1). The primary user (parent) "may approve or disapprove the request by replying to the approval request, such as by text or voice" (¶ 24). Specifically: "the primary user may reply to the text message with 'YES', 'OK', or 'NO'" ( ¶ 24).. The system enables the parent to provide approval, and "the service provider may determine whether the primary user approves the transaction based on the primary user's response" (¶ 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Woods' educational piggy bank having a balance determination means for currency deposits with Marx's teaching of child-initiated approval requests for online fund transfers. Specifically, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine: Woods' teaching of generating, by a microprocessor, a currency deposit request by including the amount of currency in a structured deposit request transmitted to a bank's computer with Marx's teaching of a child (secondary user) submitting a payment request for an online fund transfer through an interactive display; communicating, by a processor the payment request to a parent's (primary user's) device through a payment provider server; the parent's device receiving the approval request through a user interface; and enabling the parent to approve the request, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to provide parental oversight and real-time approval capability for child-initiated deposit transactions in Woods' educational piggy bank (educational banking system) for children to allow parents to monitor and control when and how children add funds to their accounts while maintaining the educational benefits of Woods' child-focused piggy bank.
Both references operate in the field of financial transaction systems for children under parental control. Woods explicitly targets children as users of educational banking apparatus, while Marx specifically addresses parent-child shared payment accounts. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that Woods' system, which already communicates balance information to a remote bank computer, could be enhanced with Marx's interactive approval workflow to give parents real-time control over deposits, not just automatic balance updates. This combination would provide the predictable result of adding parental approval functionality to Woods' child-oriented banking system, using known techniques (server-based approval requests) applied to a known device (Woods' microprocessor-based banking apparatus) to yield predictable results (parental oversight of child financial transactions). The modification requires no more than ordinary skill and creativity, as it merely applies Marx's established approval workflow to Woods' deposit processing system.
Woods discloses determining coin value and updating a stored balance using a coin sensor or weight sensor to analyze coin parameters or weight to determine value. Woods does not use “image processing” or comparing the analysed data with pre-defined profiles of different currency types to identify the amount of the currency. Thus, Woods does not disclose but Osterberg discloses:
calculate, by the microcontroller, an amount of the currency by analyzing characteristics of the currency using an image processing technique [to obtain an analysed data and comparing the analysed data with pre-defined profiles of different currency types [prestored coin reference data in memory] to identify the amount of the currency;
(Examiner interprets “image processing techniques” in view of the specification as any technique that processes visual/optical information to extract physical characteristics from currency for identification purposes. Spec. ¶ 35.
See at least ¶ 65, “the coin acceptance module 126 is a coin counting cash acceptance module (CAM) 226 which is shown in more detail in some of the drawings. The CAM 226 has a processor (CPU) or similar controller circuitry which is controllable from the controller 110.” See also, ¶ 68. ¶ 67, “The coin sensor unit 282 will detect certain physical properties of the passing coin, such as conductivity, permeability, diameter and thickness, and compare these to prestored coin reference data in a memory by way of the processor of the CAM 226. If the comparison fails to identify the coin as a coin of a valid denomination, it will be regarded as invalid.” ¶ 68, “If on the other hand a valid denomination has been established for the coin, its denomination or associated value will be recorded for later use when calculating a total value for all valid coins processed during the coin deposit transaction upon its completion.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Woods' piggy bank having a coin sensor with Osterberg's teaching of image-based currency recognition. Specifically, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Woods' teaching of a piggy bank with a coin sensor that determines the value of deposited currency for processing and maintaining a child’s balance with Osterberg's teaching of calculating an amount of currency by analyzing characteristics of the currency using an image processing technique to obtain analyzed data and comparing the analyzed data with pre-defined profiles of different currency types [prestored coin reference data] to identify the amount of the currency with the motivation to improve the accuracy and reliability of Woods' coin detection system by replacing or supplementing the basic coin sensor with image-based recognition technology to enable Woods' piggy bank to more accurately determine deposited currency amounts, reduce counting errors that could frustrate child users and the education benefits thereof, and distinguish between different coin denominations and currency types with greater precision. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that image processing techniques for currency recognition are applicable to both paper currency and coins, as the underlying principle—capturing visual characteristics and comparing to reference data—is the same regardless of currency form factor.
Regarding Claim 2, Woods, Marx, and Osterberg discloses:
The system of claim 1 and the piggy bank
Woods further discloses
wherein the piggy bank is configured to generate a currency withdrawal request by the microcontroller,
(See at least col. 4:34–5, “The microprocessor obtains its instructions from ROM 34 in known manner.” The microprocessor is programmed to perform the claimed operations. Abstract, “An educational banking apparatus is provided comprising a compartment for storing money … an outlet to allow money to be withdrawn from the apparatus.” Col. 5:9–3, “Where money is not being inserted processing proceeds to step S22 where the device determines whether a money withdrawal is desired. If yes, then processing proceeds to step S24 at which money is dispensed and the balance in the RAM is updated.”)
Woods discloses a piggy bank with microprocessor that generates and processes currency withdrawals. Woods does not disclose a child-initiated approval request through and interactive display. Thus, Woods does not disclose but Marx discloses:
when the child submits a second approval request through the interactive display for currency withdrawal.
(This limitation is not substantially different than “when the child submits a first approval request through the interactive display for currency deposit” recited in Claim 1 and rejected by Marx supra. Woods discloses currency withdrawals and Marx provides the child-initiated approval request functionality. Thus, in combination, Woods and Marx discloses the claimed limitation for the same reasoning as the combination of Woods and Marx disclose the corresponding deposit limitation supra.)
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4, Woods, Marx, and Osterberg discloses:
The system of claim 1 and the microcontroller
Woods further discloses
wherein the microcontroller displays the status of denial on the interactive display,
(See at least col. 4:20–22, “The microprocessor also instructs the sound circuit 44 and the light controller 42 to provide positive, optimistic sounds and lighting effects respectively.” Col. 3:52–3, “The LEDs 20 may also flash.” Col. 4:29–31, “The light controller may generate patterns of lights, time-varying displays and even alter the color of the entire device.” Woods teaches negative feedback for withdrawals, col. 3:53–5, “The light controller may generate patterns of lights, time-varying displays and even alter the color of the entire device. The light for the entire device could go out when the unit is devoid of money.” and col. 23–28, “When it is desired to remove cash from the storage device the microprocessor activates the cash output circuit 40 which causes a coin or coins to issue from the slot 14 (FIG. 1). The microprocessor also instructs the sound circuit 44 and the light controller 42 to make negative, pessimistic sounds and lighting effects respectively.”)
Woods discloses a microprocessor controlling display elements, visual feedback from lights and sounds, and status indicators (visual and audible) for positive (deposits) (col. 3:52, “OINK! Sound”) and negative (withdrawal) of currency. Woods does not disclose the parent/guardian denies the currency deposit request or currency withdrawal request. Thus, Woods does not disclose but Marx discloses:
if the parent/guardian denies the currency deposit request or currency withdrawal request.
(See at last ¶ 12, “the transaction may be canceled or denied if the primary user [parent] disapproves the transaction” see also, ¶ 24. Claim 1, “receive a payment request initiated by the secondary user for making a payment transaction using the payment account.” ¶¶ 12, 19, “fund transfer,” which is a currency deposit or withdrawal request.)
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 8, Woods discloses
A method for monitoring activities of children to foster financial management skills, wherein the method comprising:
(See at least Abstract)
The remaining limitations of Claim 8 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Woods, Marx, and Osterberg for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, Woods, Marx, and Osterberg discloses:
The method of claim 8
Woods further discloses
wherein the method comprises (i) generating a currency withdrawal request by the microcontroller by including an amount of currency to be withdrawn in a structured withdrawal request, when the child submits a second approval request through the interactive display for currency withdrawal; (ii) transmitting the currency withdrawal request to the user device for the approval;(iii) allowing the child to withdraw the currency from the piggy bank using the microcontroller by controlling the relay switch and the motor, when the currency withdrawal request is approved by the parent/guardian through the user interface; and(iv) updating the balance of the piggy bank by the microcontroller based on the withdrawn currency.
(These limitations are not substantially different than those presented in Claim 1 except that in Claim 1, the function is a “currency deposit” and here, the function is a “currency withdrawal.” Claim 2 discloses the currency withdrawal. Therefore, Claim 9 is therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Woods, Marx, and Osterberg for the same rationale presented in Claims 1 and 2, supra.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods, Marx, and Osterberg, and further in view of Ecker (U.S. Pat. No. 5,602,546) [“Ecker”].
Regarding Claim 3, Woods, Marx, and Osterberg discloses:
The system of claim 2, the piggy bank, and the currency withdrawal request is approved by the parent/guardian
Woods discloses a piggy bank with currency storage (Fig. 1), a microprocessor 30 (Fig. 2) controlling solenoid-controlled flaps (col. 2:38–9) for coin storage compartments, a “money dispensing circuit 40” (Fig. 2), a child user of the “piggy bank” (Abstract) and withdrawal functionality (col. 2:59). Woods does not disclose when the currency withdrawal request is approved by the parent/guardian. Thus, Woods does not disclose but Marx discloses:
when the currency withdrawal request is approved by the parent/guardian
(This limitation is not substantially different than “when the currency deposit request [online fund transfer] is approved by the parent/guardian” as recited in Claim 1 and rejected by Marx supra. Woods discloses currency deposits and withdrawals, and Marx provides the child-initiated approval request functionality. Thus, in combination, Woods and Marx discloses the claimed limitation for the same reasoning as the combination of Woods and Marx disclose the corresponding deposit limitation supra.
For Marx, The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 3.
Woods discloses a piggy bank with currency storage (Fig. 1), a microprocessor 30 (Fig. 2) controlling solenoid-controlled flaps (col. 2:38–9) for currency storage compartments, a “money dispensing circuit 40” (Fig. 2), a child user of the “piggy bank” (Abstract) and withdrawal functionality (col. 2:59). Woods does not disclose the microcontroller is configured to send a control signal to the relay switch which deactivates a lock mechanism for a storage space of the currency to access the currency. Thus, Woods does not disclose but Ecker discloses:
wherein the microcontroller [master control unit] is configured to send a control signal to the relay switch which deactivates a lock mechanism for a storage space [within a car],
(See at least Claim 2, “means for relaying the activation and deactivation signals from the master control unit to the plurality of solenoid-actuated locking mechanisms and plurality of relay switches.” Abstract, “An anti-car-theft system incorporating solenoid locking
devices and relays for disabling or locking a plurality of critical components of an automobile.” Col. 2:20–5, “the relay switches may be linked to the ignition and the door locks. In this manner, when the system is activated, components linked to the relay switches and the locking mechanisms are 25 rendered inoperable.” Thus, the locking mechanisms and relay switches function to secure compartments (car door) within a car.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wood’s piggy bank having solenoid-controlled compartments for currency storage with Ecker’s means for relaying the activation and deactivation signals from the master control unit to the plurality of solenoid-actuated locking mechanisms and plurality of relay switches, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to enhance the security of Woods' currency storage device by preventing unauthorized withdrawals by the child, ensuring that stored currency can only be accessed when a parent or guardian approves the withdrawal request, and providing parental oversight and control over children's access to funds—a critical safety feature for a device designed for use by children who "cannot generally be trusted with the means to access the bank's self-service network" (Woods, Col. 1:1:25–6).
Regarding Claim 10, Woods, Marx, and Osterberg discloses:
The method of claim 8 and the relay switch
Woods further discloses
wherein the relay switch activates or deactivates a lock mechanism by the microcontroller
(See at least Claim 2, “means for relaying the activation and deactivation signals from the master control unit to the plurality of solenoid-actuated locking mechanisms and plurality of relay switches.” Abstract, “An anti-car-theft system incorporating solenoid locking
devices and relays for disabling or locking a plurality of critical components of an automobile.” Col. 2:20–5, “the relay switches may be linked to the ignition and the door locks. In this manner, when the system is activated, components linked to the relay switches and the locking mechanisms are 25 rendered inoperable.” Thus, the locking mechanisms and relay switches function to secure compartments (car door) within a car.
by allowing or cutting off power to the motor to access a storage space of the piggy bank.
(See at least col. 4:12–18, Fig. 1 includes “a plurality of solenoid actuated locking mechanisms 40 … at several critical components within the motor vehicle. A component is considered critical if, by the engagement of the locking mechanism 40 installed thereat, the component is locked and prevented from properly operating.” Col. 4:25–31, “The anti-theft system also includes a plurality of disabling relay switches 50 linked to particular components of the motor vehicle. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, one relay switch 51 is linked to the vehicle's ignition while another relay switch 52 is linked to the passenger door locks.” Col. 5:13–23, “the signal is relayed along the carrying means 60 to each of the solenoid-actuated locking mechanisms 40 and each of the disabling relay switches 50. When the activation signal is received by each of the locking mechanisms 40, each locking mechanism is caused to move into a lock engaging position at its particular component (e.g. steering column, brakes etc.) to prevent that particular component from operating. Similarly, the activation signal causes each of the relay switches 50 to disable the component to which it is connected (e.g. ignition).” Col. 2:56–9, “When the passenger doors are unlocked, each solenoid-actuated locking mechanism and each relay switch is consequently disengaged from its particular component thereby making the automobile readily operable.” Under BRI, a relay switch 50 that “disables the component” is doing so by cutting off the electrical path (power) to that component or its actuator; when enabled, it restores power so the solenoid actuated lock mechanism 40 (a motorized actuator) can move between locked and unlocked states.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 3 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 10.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods, Marx, and Osterberg, and further in view of Meyers et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0055655) [“Meyers”].
Regarding Claim 5, Woods, Marx, and Osterberg discloses:
The system of claim 1 and the user interface associated with the user device
Woods does not disclose but Meyers discloses:
wherein the user interface associated with the user device enables the parent/guardian to create at least one task [chore] with a timeline for completion [anytime] and a corresponding reward,
(See at least ¶ 28, “a parent, has the ability to set tasks such as chores for the account
holder, such as a child, to perform prior to receiving a transfer of funds. The parent may provide a list of household chores for the child to perform. Upon completing each chore, the child may notify the parent. The parent may confirm that the chore was properly completed and transfer an amount into the child's fund account. … Upon completing a task, the child may indicate such, by clicking "complete" next to the chore or by other means.” Claim 14, “wherein after a first task is performed, said first task is tagged as being completed and a corresponding transaction is performed.”)
wherein the at least one task is displayed in the interactive display of the piggy bank as pending tasks.
(See at least Claim 11, “wherein said notification device includes a display indicating a goal and a status of said fund account with respect to said goal.” ¶ 23, “display 130 shows a variety of information, such as the current balance 140 in the fund account, a status bar 150 and a goal 160. For example, if the account holder is saving up to purchase a certain product, they may set the goal amount and have display 130 show status bar 150 so that they may see how far they have to go before reaching the goal. Whereas only one goal amount is illustrated, display 130 may display more than one goal amount. Such display 130 may show this information constantly, periodically or briefly whenever there is an activity in the fund account, as an application specific design choice.”)
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 Woods' networked piggy bank device having visual and audible indicators and network communication capability for transmitting balance information to a remote banking institution with Meyers’ task-based reward system for children where a parent provides a list of household chores for the child to perform with predetermined payment values, in the same field of children's financial education and money management devices, with the motivation to enhance child engagement and parental oversight by enabling parents to incentivize desired behaviors through the familiar piggy bank interface, and teach children the connection between task completion and earning money, as both references explicitly teach systems designed to encourage children to save money and become familiar with financial education concepts.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods, Marx, Osterberg, and Meyers further in view of Ferrari (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0198382) [“Ferrari”].
Regarding Claim 6, Woods, Marx, and Osterberg discloses:
The system of claim 1 and the user interface associated with the user device
Woods does not disclose but Meyers discloses:
wherein the user interface associated with the user device [Fig. 2, element 120] is configured to track savings of the child over a period of time and enable the parent/guardian to create at least one goal […], wherein the at least one goal is displayed in the interactive display of the piggy bank as pending goals [Fig. 3, element 160, “$60” is the goal]
(See at least ¶ 23, “Illustrated in FIG. 3 [piggy bank] is an embodiment in which display 130 shows a variety of information, such as the current balance 140 in the fund account, a status bar 150 and a goal 160. For example, if the account holder is saving up to purchase a certain product, they may set the goal amount and have display 130 show status bar 150 so that they may see how far they have to go before reaching the goal. Whereas only one goal amount is illustrated, display 130 may display more than one goal amount. Such display 130 may show this information constantly, periodically or briefly whenever there is an activity in the fund account, as an application specific design choice.” ¶ 31, “Another method of encouraging children to save and utilize the fund account may include providing status according to the amount saved in the fund account, the number of transactions performed.” ¶ 28, “a parent, has the ability to set tasks such as chores for the account holder, such as a child, to perform prior to receiving a transfer of funds. The parent may provide a list of household chores for the child to perform. Upon completing each chore, the child may notify the parent. The parent may confirm that the chore was properly completed and transfer an amount into the child's fund account.” Meyers further states that “only one goal amount is illustrated, [but] display 130 may display more than one goal amount” and that this information “may show… constantly, periodically or briefly whenever there is an activity in the fund account” (¶23). Thus, Meyers teaches a piggy bank device whose interactive display presents one or more savings goals and their status. “Pending goals” is understood broadly under BRI as goals that are in progress (not yet reached), Meyers’ display of a goal 160 with a status bar 150 indicating how far the account holder has to go before reaching the goal (¶23) reasonably corresponds to displaying pending goals on the piggy bank’s interactive display.
Woods discloses a piggy bank associated with a bank account, enabling a child to save funds while the bank maintains account records and balance information. Woods further teaches communicating balance information between the storage device and a remote bank computer and encouraging saving behavior. Meyers discloses a piggy bank device with an integrated display that “show[ing]… a status bar (150) and a goal (160) … so that [the child] may see how far they have to go before reaching the goal,” as well as an application that “lists goals the [parental] account holder seeks to achieve.” Thus, Woods and Meyers, in combination, teaches a piggy bank type device with an interactive display and a user interface that tracks progress of savings toward a goal. However, Woods and Meyers, in combination, do not explicitly disclose “enable[ing] the parent/guardian to create … [a] monthly contribution of the child to achieve the goal.” Thus, the combination of Woods and Meyers does not disclose but Ferrari discloses:
enable the parent/guardian to create at least one goal with a timeline for achieving the goal and monthly contribution of the child to achieve the goal,
(See at least Fig. 3, disclosing a savings goal system and a user interface on a website that allows the customer to input a savings goal and a time frame, and a controller “automatically calculates the weekly and/or monthly contribution needed” (¶ 15) and displays the “Monthly Contribution” along with “Desired Savings Goals” and “Time Frame (Months)” to the user. The savings account “establishes the savings goal, the time frame, [and] the recommended contribution” (¶ 8), thereby guiding the user on how much to save per month to reach the goal.
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 child-oriented piggy-bank system of Woods to incorporate Ferrari’s teaching of associating each savings goal with a time frame and a computed periodic (e.g., monthly) contribution. Ferrari explains that establishing a savings goal, a time frame, and a recommended contribution helps the user plan and meet a desired purchase. Ferrari, ¶¶ 8, 15, Fig. 3. Applying this known financial-planning technique to the analogous problem of helping a child and/or parent manage savings goals in a piggy-bank system would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would have yielded no more than the predictable result of improving the ability to plan and monitor progress toward the goal.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods, Marx, and Osterberg, and further in view of Billman et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 12,100,041) [“Billman”].
Regarding Claim 7, Woods, Marx, and Osterberg discloses:
The system of claim 1 and the piggy bank
Woods does not disclose but Billman discloses
wherein the piggy bank comprises a chip card inserting functionality [Fig. 1, “card reader 162”] that enables secure transactions, fund additions, and balance inquiries and
(See at least Fig. 4, steps 186, 190, and associated text col. 16:45–60, “In response to receiving the card detection signal, the computing system 14 may prompt the child user to indicate a withdrawal amount (e.g., an amount of currency) … In response to receiving an indication of a desired currency withdrawal amount (e.g., based on inputs received at
the graphical user interface 120), the computing system 14 may instruct the card reader 162 to transfer funds (e.g., digitally transfer) from the child banking account 44 to the card 168, as indicated in block 186 [withdrawal].” Col. 17:24–6, “the card charging system 160 enable the child user to transfer (e.g., digitally transfer) funds from the card 168 to the child banking account 44 [deposit].” Card based transfers between the hosted banking account 44 and card 168, triggered by user input is “enabling secure transactions.” Col. 17:6–10, “upon completion of the withdrawal of funds from the child banking account 44, the computing system 14 may be configured to display a remaining balance of the child banking account 44 on the display 54.” Claims 1, “instruct the display to display
information relating to the banking account of the user” … “wherein the information comprises an account balance of the banking account” (Claim 3)).
a fingerprint sensor [Fid. 1, fingerprint sensor 88”] that enables the parent/guardian to lock and unlock the piggy bank using a fingerprint.
(The processor executes an authentication process before giving access to account information. Claim 6, “acquiring feedback indicative of biometric data of the user; comparing the feedback to known biometric data of the user; and determining whether the biometric data matches the known biometric data.” Claim 7, The financial education tool of claim 6, comprising a camera or a fingerprint sensor coupled to the body portion and communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the camera or the fingerprint sensor is configured to provide the feedback.” Col. 9:1–5, “As indicated by block 80, in some embodiments, the computing system 14 may, in response to receiving the status inquiry at the block 64, request that the child user execute an authentication sequence, prior to the computing system 14 outputting the response to the status inquiry.” Col. 10:16–23, 39–45, “the financial awareness tool 12 may include a fingerprint sensor 88 … that are configured to facilitate execution of the authentication sequence. Particularly, in such embodiments, at the block 80, the computing system 14 may prompt the child user to press the fingerprint sensor 88 … to authenticate themselves … Upon determining that the received biometric data matches the biometric information associated with the child user, the computing system 14 may proceed to the block 72. That is, the computing system 14 may output the response to the status inquiry at the block 72 upon successful execution of the authentication sequence.” See also Fig. 2. Fingerprint is used by the child to authenticate themselves and then, the system permits the account information (e.g., balance) and allows requested operations. Operation of the device is gated behind a successful fingerprint match.
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 child-oriented piggy-bank system of Woods to incorporate Billman’s piggy bank with chip card inserting functionality that enables secure transactions, fund additions, and balance inquiries and a fingerprint sensor that enables the parent/guardian to lock and unlock the piggy bank using a fingerprint, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to enhance Woods’ child-oriented educational banking apparatus by incorporating well-known smart-card and biometric access techniques, thereby allowing parents to securely control electronic deposits, withdrawals, and balance inquiries directly through the piggy bank interface and teaching children modern, real-world payment and security practices in a familiar savings toy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
2 “It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. … Accordingly, examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings and proceed with the analysis in Step 2A Prong Two.” MPEP § 2106.04(a).
3 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").