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
This Final office action is in response to the application filed on February 27, 2025 and the amendments to the claims filed on June 10, 2026.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 8-19) have been fully considered, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity since, “claim 10 does not recite steps that amount to a commercial or legal interactions” (Remarks, pages 8-12). However, claim 10 clearly recites steps of initiating a communication from a mobile device with an ATM, receiving a message on the mobile device from the ATM, executing a second communication from the mobile device to the ATM, and receiving instructions for updating a display of the mobile device from the ATM. This exchange of information between an ATM and mobile device recites, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a commercial or legal interaction. The specification further supports that the interactions between the mobile device and ATM are for financial and commercial transactions, see at least paragraphs [0003-0009]. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are directed to a practical application that, “improves the functioning of the devices…provides a technical solution to cross-device latency and state-mismatch problems, ensuring that both the mobile device and the ATM reflect the exact same network status simultaneously” (Remarks, pages 13-16) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the specification. The specification is silent as to the purported technical improvements that applicant is arguing. Instead, the specification sets forth that the invention is not directed to solving a technological problem but rather another way to complete a financial transaction with an ATM (paragraphs [0003-0009]). Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and that the claims are similar to those found eligible in Example 35, (Remarks, pages 16-19), are not persuasive. Specifically, Example 35 is directed towards verifying a bank customer's identity to permit an ATM transaction. The combination of the steps of the ATM providing a random code, the mobile communication device's generation of the image having encrypted code data in response to the random code, the ATM's decryption and analysis of the code data, and the subsequent determination of whether the transaction should proceed based on the analysis of the code data operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way to ensure that the customer's identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone. However, the current claims do not perform any random code generation, image encrypted with code data, or decryption and analysis of that image in order to determine if the transaction should proceed. Further, the claims are silent as to any identification verification. Therefore, Example 35 does not apply.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
6/23/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights