DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are currently pending and considered below.
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 .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on May 21, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Application 19/214,387 was filed 05/21/2025 is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Nonprovisional Application No. 17/832,213 filed on June 3, 2022, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/196,759 filed on June 4, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/21/2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1-20 are directed to a method (process). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A method, comprising: performing, with a controller of a drive up banking system, a preventative maintenance module for a control system that includes one or more of an entrance control system, a financial equipment system, a drive-thru audio system, or a pneumatic control system: receiving, with a communication system, a current equipment identifier from equipment that includes a universal board, wherein the equipment is associated with any of the entrance control system, the financial equipment system, the drive-thru audio system, or the pneumatic control system; determining, with the controller, whether the current equipment identifier is within a performance threshold of a historical performance identifier of the equipment; displaying, in response to the current equipment identifier being within the performance threshold, the current equipment identifier on a user interface; and determining, in response to the current equipment identifier not being within the performance threshold, whether the current equipment identifier is an informational event.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of collecting equipment performance information, comparing it to historical performance information, evaluating whether maintenance criteria are satisfied, and determining an appropriate maintenance or corrective action based on the comparison. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a process implemented by a preventative maintenance module for a control system, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed manually by person. For example, for the recited computer components, the claim encompasses monitoring equipment performance and planning maintenance activities that could be performed manually by maintenance personnel or system operators as part of managing the operation of a drive-up banking system. Such activities be carried out using maintenance records, service logs, historical performance data, and manual comparisons to determine whether equipment requires servicing or whether an abnormal event has occurred. Additionally, comparing current equipment performance information to historical performance information and determining whether maintenance or corrective action should be taken constitutes a method of organizing human activity in the form of a commercial interaction, as it involves managing the maintenance and servicing of banking equipment to ensure continued business operations and reduce any operational disruptions. Thus, the claimed data analysis is ultimately used to facilitate maintenance management decisions for commercial banking and therefore amounts to a commercial practice of managing business equipment maintenance. The mere nominal recitation of a “a controller”, “preventative maintenance module for a control system”, “an entrance control system”, “a financial equipment system”, “a drive-thru audio system”, “a pneumatic control system”, “a communication system”, and “a user interface” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). In particular, Claim 1 recites additional elements of “a controller”, “preventative maintenance module for a control system”, “an entrance control system”, “a financial equipment system”, “a drive-thru audio system”, “a pneumatic control system”, “a communication system”, and “a user interface”. The additional elements, are described at a high-level of generality such that they merely perform their ordinary functions of receiving equipment information, communicating data, comparing current equipment identifiers to historical performance information, displaying results, and determining whether maintenance or corrective actions should be taken. These components are used to perform known data collection, comparison, evaluation, and notification functions, without disclosing any specialized improvement to the operation of the controller, communication system, drive-up banking system, or other underlying computer technology itself. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of “a controller”, “preventative maintenance module for a control system”, “an entrance control system”, “a financial equipment system”, “a drive-thru audio system”, “a pneumatic control system”, “a communication system”, and “a user interface” when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2-3 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein in response to the current equipment identifier being within the performance threshold having been satisfied, further comprising determining a type of maintenance required for the equipment and wherein the historical performance identifier includes an average life-expectancy of the equipment. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how comparing equipment performance information and determining an appropriate maintenance or corrective action based on the comparison, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 4-6 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein in response to the current equipment identifier being the informational device event having been satisfied, further comprising continuing operation of the equipment, wherein in response to the current equipment identifier not being the informational device event having been satisfied, determining whether the current equipment identifier is an atypical device event; in response to the current equipment identifier being the atypical device event having been satisfied, performing a clearing workflow of a carrier between a customer and a teller; and determining whether the clearing workflow was successful, and in response to the clearing workflow being successful changing the current equipment identifier to the informational device event, wherein in response to the current equipment identifier not being the atypical device event having been satisfied, determining whether the current equipment identifier is an error device event; in response to the current equipment identifier being the error device event having been satisfied, performing a clearing workflow of a carrier between a customer and a teller and determining whether the clearing workflow was successful, and in response to the clearing workflow being successful changing the current equipment identifier to the informational device event. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how comparing equipment performance information and determining an appropriate maintenance or corrective action based on the comparison, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “customer unit”, “teller unit”, “drive up banking system” which are considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 7 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein in response to the current equipment identifier not being the error device event having been satisfied, determining whether the current equipment identifier is a detrimental device event; and in response to the current equipment identifier being the detrimental device event having been satisfied, displaying the current equipment identifier. In addition, the claims recite the additional element “the user interface” which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim 8-9 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the informational device event includes a current status and a current status of a customer or a teller. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “the entrance control system”, “the financial equipment system”, “the drive-thru audio system”, “the pneumatic control system”, “customer unit”, “teller unit”, and “drive up banking system” which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim 10 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the detrimental device event corresponds to a failure in the equipment. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how comparing equipment performance information and determining an appropriate maintenance or corrective action based on the comparison, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 11-12 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include , wherein the performing the clearing workflow includes: moving, the carrier; in response to moving the carrier , determining whether the carrier is physically located; and wherein in response to the carrier not being physically located being satisfied, the current equipment identifier is the atypical device event and wherein the performing the clearing workflow includes: wherein in response to the carrier being physically located at being satisfied, then moving, , the carrier from ; in response to moving the carrier determining whether the carrier is physically located; and wherein in response to the carrier not being physically located at the being satisfied, the current equipment identifier is the atypical device event. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “controller”, “teller unit”, “customer unit” which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim 13-14 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the performing the clearing workflow includes: wherein in response to the carrier being physically located at being satisfied, then recalling, the carrier from, in response to recalling the carrier, determining whether the carrier is physically located; and wherein in response to the carrier not being physically located at the being satisfied, the current equipment identifier is the atypical device event and wherein in response to recalling the carrier such that the carrier is physically located at being satisfied, then opening, a door. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “customer unit”, “teller unit”, “the controller”, which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim 15-16 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the atypical device event includes determining that the carrier was not detected when the carrier was sent to or the carrier was not detected at when the carrier was sent to and tracking a number of detection events wherein the detection events correspond to either the carrier not being detected; determining whether the number of tracked detection events is greater than a maximum number of tracked detection events; and in response to the number of tracked detection events being greater than the maximum number not being satisfied, changing the current equipment identifier to the informational device event. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “customer unit”, “teller unit”, which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim 17 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the determining whether the current equipment identifier is an atypical device event includes: moving, , the carrier to either the; in response to moving the carrier, tracking a number of detection events wherein the detection events correspond to either the carrier not being detected at the as instructed by the moving step; determining whether the number of tracked detection events is greater than a maximum number of tracked detection events; and in response to the number of tracked detection events being greater than the maximum number being satisfied, changing the status of the current equipment identifier to an atypical device event. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “customer unit”, “teller unit”, and “controller” which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim 18-20 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the maximum number is 10, wherein in response to the current equipment identifier being the detrimental device event having been satisfied, determining a type of maintenance needed on the equipment, and discontinuing operation of the equipment in response to the current equipment identifier being the detrimental device event having been satisfied. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how comparing equipment performance information and determining an appropriate maintenance or corrective action based on the comparison, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridolfo (US20030216888) in view of Gromley et al. (US20140121830), in view of Raghavan et al. (US20230102389), further in view of Hoganson et al. (US20170129718).
Ridolfo is directed to a display system in which subsequent failures of plant equipment and plant systems are predicted to occur and in which the probability of failure before a specified date and the probability of failure after a specified date is determined and displayed and in which the calendar date is determined and displayed when the desired probability that the equipment not fail prior to the calendar date is specified.
With regards to Claim 1, Ridolfo teaches a method, comprising: (See Abstract & FIG 1)
performing, [with a controller of a drive-up banking system], a preventative maintenance module for a control system that includes one or more of an entrance control system, a financial equipment system, a drive-thru audio system, or a pneumatic control system: (See [0051]-Several comparative methods may be utilized for preventative maintenance data analyses. Data for a particular system or component can be compared to standard values, manufacturers' recommendations, technical specifications, code limits, or normal baseline data or ranges. Data may be compared on an absolute basis or a relative basis. Also See [0035]-FIG. 2 provides a diagrammatic illustration of a preferred embodiment of the predictive maintenance display system of this invention. Sensors 1, located on plant equipment, record plant and plant process parameters (such as temperatures, flow rates, pressures, radiation levels, valve positions, pump rotation speeds, vibration levels, acoustic signatures, etc.). These sensors interface with a data acquisition system 2 that transmits the acquired sensor data to a digital computer 3. Video display units (VDU) 8 located at engineering workstations 10, are used to present predictive maintenance information to the operators and maintenance personnel. Also See [00]-)
receiving, with a communication system, a current equipment identifier from equipment that includes a universal board, wherein the equipment is associated with any of the entrance control system, [the financial equipment system, the drive-thru audio system, or the pneumatic control system]; (See [0092] FIG. 7 illustrates another implementation of the Interactive Predictor Display for plant equipment (a Reactor Coolant Pump--RCP 1A) which is comprised of 4 constituent sub-elements. Each of the indicated sub-elements contributes to the overall probability of pump failure.)
*The Examiner determines that, although the prior art reference does not explicitly disclose “a universal board, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosed equipment to include, or be implemented with, a universal board because the equipment is configured to interface with multiple control systems. A common communication board would facilitate communication among the various systems while providing a unified hardware interface.
determining, with the controller, whether the current equipment identifier is within a performance threshold of a historical performance identifier of the equipment; (Also See [0052]-data from a specific component may be analyzed to identify discontinuities (breaks) in a performance curve, or data trends, or data offsets. In addition, data on similar components can be compared to develop comparison data relative to similar components. This comparison of data is used to assess equipment or system health and aging. See [0049]-Component monitoring may utilize alarm/alert limits using thresholds, bands and frequency filters. This approach allows subsequently gathered information to be compared to expected regions of operation for the monitored components.)
The Ridolfi reference teaches the recited preventive maintenance functionality but in the context of industrial equipment rather than a drive-up banking system. However, Gromley et al. is directed to a system for carrying out transactions between a customer at a customer station and a service provider at a service provider station, includes transferring items through transaction devices such as pneumatic carrier delivery and receiving device and a deal drawer.
Gromley et al. teaches:
a drive-up banking system (See [0071]-banking transaction systems may include one or more computerized transaction devices which are operative to facilitate the carrying out of banking transactions for users. Also See [0056]- the service provider station is also positioned adjacent to a drive-through window 18. A movable drawer mechanism 20 such as a deal drawer, may be used by the service provider at the service provider station to exchange items with customers at a customer station 21 which is in a drive-through lane 19 adjacent to the drawer mechanism 20. Also See [0107]- Service provider terminal 196 of this example embodiment comprises a pneumatic carrier delivery and receiving device of the type previously described. The service provider terminal is in operative connection with a control panel 198 which is operative to receive inputs from a service provider for purposes of communicating with customers and causing a pneumatic carrier to move between the service provider terminal and a customer terminal 200.)
an informational event (See [0190]- device/event data can be collected with regard to a pneumatic tube carrier used in a check cashing transaction assisted by a drive-through lane teller. The data may include a carrier identifier (serial number), where the carrier was located (bank branch #27), drive-through lane number associated with the carrier base (lane #3), event code (check cashing), event date/time (of carrier activations), time when the carrier was sent by customer to teller, time when the carrier was sent by teller to the customer, wear time correlated to carrier life, value to be associated with carrier operation ($120), what the carrier did (transported one check and six currency notes), a transaction identifier, a customer identifier, a teller identifier, etc.)
*The Examiner reasonably interprets the event data associated with the carrier identifier disclosed in the art as constituting an informational event corresponding to the current equipment identifier.
Ridolfo and Gromley et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of process monitoring systems and providing predictive maintenance. Therefore, 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 Ridolfo reference to further include a drive-up banking system and an informational event as taught by Gromley et al. This is desirable such that it may allow for the system enables tracking and statistical data to be presented to a system user in real time. Thus, the system allows a person (manager) to know (visually access) in real time what (events, status, etc.) is currently (instantly) occurring at an automated banking machine, at a given facility (branch), in a given region, and/or across an entire banking network. (See Gromley, [0306]).
The Ridolfo-Gromley combination teaches an informational event but does not teach displaying, in response to the current equipment identifier being within the performance threshold, the current equipment identifier on a user interface.
Raghavan et al. teaches:
displaying, in response to the current equipment identifier being within the performance threshold, the current equipment identifier on a user interface; (See [0265]- For example, a user may define a Normal state, a Warning state, and a Critical state for a KPI, and the value produced by the search query of the KPI can indicate the current state of the KPI. In one implementation, one or more thresholds are created for each KPI. Each threshold defines an end of a range of values that represent a particular state of the KPI. A graphical interface can be provided to facilitate user input for creating one or more thresholds for each KPI, naming the states for the KPI, and associating a visual indicator (e.g., color, pattern) to represent a respective state. Also See [0303]- Each threshold defines an end of a range of values representing a certain state for the KPI. Multiple states can be defined for the KPI (e.g., normal state), and the current state of the KPI depends on which range the value, which is produced by the search query defining the KPI, falls into.)
Ridolfo, Gromley et al., and Raghavan et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of process monitoring systems and providing predictive maintenance. Therefore, 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 Ridolfo-Gromley combination to further include displaying, in response to the current equipment identifier being within the performance threshold, the current equipment identifier on a user interface as taught by Raghavan et al. This is desirable such that it may allow for monitoring performance of a system at a service level using key performance indicators derived from machine data. (See Raghavan, [0254]).
The Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan combination does not teach determining, in response to the current equipment identifier not being within the performance threshold, whether the current equipment identifier is [an informational event].
Hoganson et al. teaches:
determining, in response to the current equipment identifier not being within the performance threshold, whether the current equipment identifier is [an informational event] (See [0023]-the system may utilize carrier transaction information to facilitate scheduled carrier maintenance. By way of example, the central controller may utilize carrier transaction information from a database that keeps track of the number of transactions, or time in service, for each carrier, and compare such information to predetermined maintenance thresholds to determine whether a given carrier should be removed from the system for inspection/maintenance procedures. In the event a maintenance operation and inspection/maintenance operation is in order, the transaction information for a given carrier can be utilized to identify the location of the carrier and provide instructions to the corresponding user station (e.g., instructions to send the given carrier to a inspection/maintenance location within the system). Also See [0304]- For example, if the service has 10 KPIs and if the values produced by the search queries for 9 of the 10 KPIs indicate that the corresponding KPI is in a normal state, then the value 482 for an aggregate KPI may indicate that the overall performance of the service is satisfactory. Also See [0286]-a user may request the service-monitoring dashboard to be displayed, and the search queries for the KPIs 106 can be executed in response to the request to produce the value 108 for the respective KPI 106. The produced values 108 can be displayed in the service-monitoring dashboard.).
Ridolfo, Gromley et al., Raghavan et al., and Hoganson et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of process monitoring systems and providing predictive maintenance. Therefore, 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 Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan combination to further include determining, in response to the current equipment identifier not being within the performance threshold, whether the current equipment identifier is [an informational event] as taught by Hoganson et al. This is desirable such that it may allow for an improved system and method for carrier handling in a pneumatic tube carrier system. (See Hoganson, [0006]).
In regards to Claim 2 the Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan-Hoganson combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
The Ridolfo-Gromley combination does not teach wherein in response to the current equipment identifier being within the performance threshold having been satisfied.
Raghavan et al. further teaches:
wherein in response to the current equipment identifier being within the performance threshold having been satisfied, (See [0023]-the system may utilize carrier transaction information to facilitate scheduled carrier maintenance. By way of example, the central controller may utilize carrier transaction information from a database that keeps track of the number of transactions, or time in service, for each carrier, and compare such information to predetermined maintenance thresholds to determine whether a given carrier should be removed from the system for inspection/maintenance procedures. In the event a maintenance operation and inspection/maintenance operation is in order, the transaction information for a given carrier can be utilized to identify the location of the carrier and provide instructions to the corresponding user station (e.g., instructions to send the given carrier to a inspection/maintenance location within the system). Also See [0304]- For example, if the service has 10 KPIs and if the values produced by the search queries for 9 of the 10 KPIs indicate that the corresponding KPI is in a normal state, then the value 482 for an aggregate KPI may indicate that the overall performance of the service is satisfactory. Also See [0276]- User interfaces enable a user to create and maintain system control information that directs the recognition of maintenance periods so that tainted data may be prevented and/or identified with a maintenance state.) further comprising determining a type of maintenance required for the equipment (See [1106]- Selection buttons 90344a and 90344b enable the user to specify classes or types maintenance objects that can be selected for inclusion in the MP definition. The available options shown for this embodiment include entities and services. In one embodiment, a maintenance period may include only one type of maintenance object and interacting with either of buttons 90344a and 90344b will inactivate the other. In one embodiment, a maintenance period may include multiple types of maintenance objects, still buttons 90344a and 90344b remain mutually exclusive with the last activated button determining the type of maintenance objects that will be listed on a subsequent interface for user selection.)
Ridolfo, Gromley et al., Raghavan et al., and Hoganson et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of process monitoring systems and providing predictive maintenance. Therefore, 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 Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan-Hoganson combination to further include wherein in response to the current equipment identifier being within the performance threshold having been satisfied, further comprising determining a type of maintenance required for the equipment as taught by Raghavan et al. This is desirable such that it may allow for monitoring performance of a system at a service level using key performance indicators derived from machine data. (See Raghavan, [0254]).
In regards to Claim 3 the Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan-Hoganson combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Ridolfo further teaches:
wherein the historical performance identifier includes an average life-expectancy of the equipment (Also See [0052]-data from a specific component may be analyzed to identify discontinuities (breaks) in a performance curve, or data trends, or data offsets. In addition, data on similar components can be compared to develop comparison data relative to similar components. This comparison of data is used to assess equipment or system health and aging. Also See [0055]- The following describes a number of the predictive maintenance analysis applications that are employed by the Equipment Failure and Degradation Module 4 to predict remaining equipment life. Also See [0078]-For some equipment and components, position/alignment measurements serve as an indicator of equipment integrity and an indication of remaining useful service life.)
In regards to Claim 8 the Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan-Hoganson combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
The Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan does not teach wherein the informational device event includes a current status of any of the entrance control system, the financial equipment system, the drive-thru audio system, and the pneumatic control system.
Hoganson et al. teaches:
wherein the informational device event includes a current status of any of the entrance control system, the financial equipment system, the drive-thru audio system, and the pneumatic control system (See [0025]- The visual indications generated at the user interfaces regarding the occurrence of an event within the system may include text messages. Such text messages may indicate, inter alia, the origination location of a carrier, a destination location for the carrier, an identification of a sending party, an identification of a receiving party, the priority of the carrier, an indication of the contents of the carrier and/or a current status of the carrier (e.g., in transit, ETA, etc.). Also See [0027]- use of a graphical representation of the pneumatic carrier system may further allow for providing a visual indication of the current status of one or more systems within the system. For instance, if a portion of the system is offline or otherwise inactive, appropriate representation may be provided on the graphical representation.).
Ridolfo, Gromley et al., Raghavan et al., and Hoganson et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of process monitoring systems and providing predictive maintenance. Therefore, 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 Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan-Hoganson combination to further include wherein the informational device event includes a current status of any of the entrance control system, the financial equipment system, the drive-thru audio system, and the pneumatic control system as taught by Hoganson et al. This is desirable such that it may allow for an improved system and method for carrier handling in a pneumatic tube carrier system. (See Hoganson, [0006]).
In regards to Claim 9 the Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan-Hoganson combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Gromley teaches:
wherein the informational device event includes a current status of a customer unit or a teller unit associated with the drive-up banking system (See [0071]-banking transaction systems may include one or more computerized transaction devices which are operative to facilitate the carrying out of banking transactions for users. Also See [0056]- the service provider station is also positioned adjacent to a drive-through window 18. A movable drawer mechanism 20 such as a deal drawer, may be used by the service provider at the service provider station to exchange items with customers at a customer station 21 which is in a drive-through lane 19 adjacent to the drawer mechanism 20. See [0050]-acquire analysis data representative of event data corresponding to transactions carried out at a plurality of automated banking machines that include a cash dispenser, and device data corresponding to components of the machine operated during the transactions. Also See [0057]- The example customer station includes a customer terminal 24 which is also referred to herein as a transaction device. Also See [0062]- providing the service provider with information concerning the status of components in the system. Also See [0210] FIG. 42 shows a display screen providing a holistic offering for managers (e.g., of a financial facility, pharmacy, etc.) to view the status and metrics of their entire facility operation. From the display screen the manager can access the current operational status of several devices. Also See [0258]- An example teller display output provides customer data on the customer's name (e.g., John Connor), at least one account number, the type of transaction (e.g., transfer funds from savings to checking), a savings account balance, and a checking account balance. The teller display also shows that the next customer (e.g., Miles Dyson) is requesting $500 in cash. The teller display can also show completed transactions, such that a customer (e.g., Robert Wilhelm) deposited one check having an amount of $850.45.)
Ridolfo, Gromley et al., Raghavan et al., and Hoganson et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of process monitoring systems and providing predictive maintenance. Therefore, 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 Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan-Hoganson combination to further include wherein the informational device event includes a current status of a customer unit or a teller unit associated with the drive-up banking system as taught by Gromley et al. This is desirable such that it may allow for the system enables tracking and statistical data to be presented to a system user in real time. Thus, the system allows a person (manager) to know (visually access) in real time what (events, status, etc.) is currently (instantly) occurring at an automated banking machine, at a given facility (branch), in a given region, and/or across an entire banking network. (See Gromley, [0306]).
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridolfo (US20030216888) in view of Gromley et al. (US20140121830), in view of Raghavan et al. (US20230102389), in view of Hoganson et al. (US20170129718), further in view of Hosek et al. (US 20110173496).
In regards to Claim 4 the Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan-Hoganson combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Raghavan et al. further teaches:
wherein in response to the current equipment identifier being the informational device event having been satisfied, (See [0023]-the system may utilize carrier transaction information to facilitate scheduled carrier maintenance. By way of example, the central controller may utilize carrier transaction information from a database that keeps track of the number of transactions, or time in service, for each carrier, and compare such information to predetermined maintenance thresholds to determine whether a given carrier should be removed from the system fuor inspection/maintenance procedures. In the event a maintenance operation and inspection/maintenance operation is in order, the transaction information for a given carrier can be utilized to identify the location of the carrier and provide instructions to the corresponding user station (e.g., instructions to send the given carrier to a inspection/maintenance location within the system). Also See [0304]- For example, if the service has 10 KPIs and if the values produced by the search queries for 9 of the 10 KPIs indicate that the corresponding KPI is in a normal state, then the value 482 for an aggregate KPI may indicate that the overall performance of the service is satisfactory. Also See [0525]- The aggregate KPI score can be periodically calculated for continuous monitoring of the service. For example, the aggregate KPI score for a service can be updated in real-time (continuously updated until interrupted). In one implementation, the aggregate KPI score for a service is updated periodically (e.g., every second).)
Ridolfo, Gromley et al., Raghavan et al., and Hoganson et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of process monitoring systems and providing predictive maintenance. Therefore, 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 Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan-Hoganson combination to further include wherein in response to the current equipment identifier being the informational device event having been satisfied s taught by Raghavan et al. This is desirable such that it may allow for monitoring performance of a system at a service level using key performance indicators derived from machine data. (See Raghavan, [0254]).
The Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan-Hoganson combination does not teach further comprising continuing operation of the equipment.
Hosek et al. teaches:
further comprising continuing operation of the equipment (See [0258]-Continuous health monitoring of the robot and other devices in the tool is accomplished by measuring some or all of the measurable signals during normal operation, and analyzing the resulting data. The measurement and analysis functions may occur continuously or periodically, but always in parallel with the normal operation. The purpose of the continuous monitoring is to detect signs of health deterioration and, if possible, to locate the sub-components that may cause this deterioration. These functions may not, however, point to the specific cause of the problem.)
Ridolfo, Gromley et al., Raghavan et al., Hoganson et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of process monitoring systems and providing predictive maintenance. Therefore, 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 Ridolfo-Gromley-Raghavan-Hoganson combination to further include further comprising continuing operation of the equipment as taught by Hosek et al. This is desirable such that it may allow for a system for condition monitoring and fault diagnosis including a data collection function that acquires time histories of selected variables for one or more of the components, a pre-processing function that calculates specified characteristics of the time histories, an analysis function for evaluating the characteristics to produce one or more hypotheses of a condition of the one or more components. (See Hosek, [0022]).
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features
found within dependent claim 5. However, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to the limitations of:
“wherein in response to the current equipment identifier not being the informational device event having been satisfied, determining whether the current equipment identifier is an atypical device event; in response to the current equipment identifier being the atypical device event having been satisfied, performing a clearing workflow of a carrier between a customer unit and a teller unit of the drive up banking system; and determining whether the clearing workflow was successful, and in response to the clearing workflow being successful changing the current equipment identifier to the informational device event.”
when the claim is considered as a whole, which is present in dependent claim 5. Dependent claims 6-7 and 10-20 are likewise not rejected under prior art by virtue of their dependency from Claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zirnstein et al. (US20170249554) discloses a method includes identifying costs associated with different outcomes of a failure prediction algorithm. The algorithm is configured to predict one or more faults with at least one piece of industrial equipment. The different outcomes include both successful and unsuccessful predictions by the algorithm.
Valerino, SR. (US20100100226) discloses A system and method provides for a pneumatic tube carrier tracking system having a system control module that captures and presents tracking information associated with sending and receiving carriers.
Harris et al. (US20020091972) discloses a method for developing machine or process specific predictions of error codes and machine or processes events associated with the operation of one or more machines or processes is provided.
All sources listed above are relevant to the disclosed and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is 571-270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights