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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation, “update the first portion of the visual indicator on the display of the ATM” in line 21 of claim 1 renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, lines 14-15 set forth that the first portion of the visual indicator is presented on the wireless computing device and lines 16-17 set forth that the second portion of the visual indicator is presented on the ATM. It is unclear if the claim is supposed to recite that the second portion is updated or the ATM or if the first portion is updated on the wireless computing device. Claims 2-9 are considered rejected by virtue of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 10 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 19. Claim 10 recites the limitations of initiating, at a mobile device, a first wireless communication with an automated teller machine (ATM), wherein the first wireless communication includes an exchange of data between the mobile device and the ATM to determine a position of the mobile device in relation to a designated area on the ATM; receiving, at the mobile device, a first message from the ATM including instructions to display at least a first portion of a visual indicator that the first wireless communication has begun, wherein the ATM is configured to simultaneously display at least a second portion of the visual indicator on a display thereof; executing, by the mobile device, a second wireless communication with the ATM; and receiving, at the mobile device, a second message from the ATM with instructions to update the first portion of the visual indicator to indicate that the second wireless communication with the ATM is complete, wherein the ATM is configured to update the second portion of the visual indicator to indicate that the second wireless communication is complete.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Displaying information received from an ATM recites a commercial or legal interaction including sales activities or behaviors or business relations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The ATM, display, antenna, and wireless computing device in Claim 1, mobile device and ATM in Claim 10, and mobile device and computing device in Claim 19 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Claims 1 and 19 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite ATM, display, antenna, and wireless computing device in Claim 1, mobile device and ATM in Claim 10, and mobile device and computing device in Claim 19. The computer hardware is 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. Therefore claims 1, 10, and 19 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)
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. [0031-0037] 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. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. 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. Thus claims 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2-4, 11, and 12 further detail tapping the ATM to establish the location of the device; Claims 5-7 and 13-15 add further details to the displayed visual indicator; Claims 8, 9, 16-18, and 20 define the type of communication channels without defining an improvement to the technical field. 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 claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References A-G are included on PTO-892 for disclosing various methods of authentication using either a mobile device or an ATM.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
2/4/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619