DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 19/275,098, was filed on 07/21/2025, and claims priority from U.S. Patent Application 17/848,032 (which is now issued U.S. Patent No. 12,400,197), filed on 06/23/2022.
The effective filing date is after the AIA date of March 16, 2013, and so the application is being examined under the “first inventor to file” provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 07/21/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of issued U.S. Patent No. 12,400,197.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of the present application are obvious variations of independent claims 1, 6, and 10 of issued U.S. Patent No. 12,400,197, respectively.
Dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 of the present application are obvious variations of dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, and 11-13 of issued U.S. Patent No. 12,400,197, respectively.
Although the independent claims at issue are not identical, the present claims are obvious variations, due to shared claim language.
“A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus.” The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2131.02.
The table below underlines and bolds phrases that are different between claim 1 in the pending application and its respective claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 12,400,197).
U.S. Application No. 19/275,098
(Present Application)
U.S. Patent No. 12,400,197
1. A system comprising:
1. A system comprising:
a sensing device that comprises a smart device positionable to detect a set of contactless gestures from a user;
a processor; and
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium that includes instructions executable by the processor to perform operations comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium that includes instructions executable by the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving at least one gesture from a smart device,
receiving a notification of at least one gesture of the set of contactless gestures from the smart device;
receiving an input from the user to select an automated teller machine (ATM) operation;
wherein the at least one gesture is a facial expression that indicates a distress signal defined in the system;
determining that the at least one gesture from the smart device is a facial expression that indicates a predetermined meaning defined in the system, wherein the predetermined meaning is a distress signal;
verifying that the at least one gesture is the distress signal based on receiving a confirmation input,
verifying that the at least one gesture is the distress signal based on receiving a different and subsequent confirmation input provided by the user,
wherein the confirmation input is a second gesture that is different than the at least one gesture;
wherein the different and subsequent confirmation input is a second gesture of the set of contactless gestures that is different than the at least one gesture;
altering an ATM operation based on the at least one gesture and providing instructions to cause the smart device to record video;
altering the ATM operation based on the predetermined meaning of the at least one gesture and causing the smart device to record video;
identifying a police station located near an ATM associated with the ATM operation;
identifying a police station located near the ATM;
contacting the police station to report the distress signal at the ATM; and
contacting the police station to report the distress signal at the ATM; and
informing a bank manager of a bank associated with the ATM of the distress signal.
informing a bank manager of a bank associated with the ATM of the distress signal.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise transmitting a request separate from the ATM operation based on a predetermined meaning of the at least one gesture.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise transmitting a request separate from the ATM operation based on the predetermined meaning of the gesture.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the smart device comprises a smart watch.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the smart device comprises a smart watch.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the confirmation input comprises a passcode associated with the at least one gesture to confirm a predetermined meaning of the distress signal.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the input from the user comprises a passcode associated with the at least one gesture to confirm the predetermined meaning of the distress signal.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one gesture is a first facial expression, and wherein the second gesture is a second facial expression that is different from the first facial expression.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one gesture is a first facial expression, and wherein the second gesture is a second facial expression that is different from the first facial expression.
Moreover, dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 12-15, and 17-19 of the present application are identical to dependent claims 2-5, 8-10, 13-16, and 19-21 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 15/255,032, and these dependent claims depend from the respective independent claims.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”.
Based on the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
In regards to Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim, claim 8 is a method claim, and claim 15 is an article of manufacture claim or product by process claim (“non-transitory computer readable medium”).
For the sake of compact prosecution, we continue with the Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” analysis.
Step 2A, prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?”
In regards to Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the abstract idea elements recited in independent claim 1 are shown in italic font. (The “additional elements” and “extra solution steps” are shown in italic and underlined font):
1. A system comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium that includes instructions executable by the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving at least one gesture from a smart device, wherein the at least one gesture is a facial expression that indicates a distress signal defined in the system;
verifying that the at least one gesture is the distress signal based on receiving a confirmation input, wherein the confirmation input is a second gesture that is different than the at least one gesture;
altering an ATM operation based on the at least one gesture and providing instructions to cause the smart device to record video;
identifying a police station located near an ATM associated with the ATM operation;
contacting the police station to report the distress signal at the ATM; and
informing a bank manager of a bank associated with the ATM of the distress signal.
More specifically, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", specifically “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (Including Social Activities, Teaching, and Following Rules or Instructions)” as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “Commercial or Legal Interactions” elements include:
“verifying that the at least one gesture is the distress signal based on receiving a confirmation input, wherein the confirmation input is a second gesture that is different than the at least one gesture”.
“altering an ATM operation based on the at least one gesture”.
“identifying a police station located near an ATM associated with the ATM operation”.
The “additional elements” include: “a processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a smart device”, “an ATM”, “a police station”, and “a bank”.
Moreover, “additional extra-solution elements” include: “receiving at least one gesture from a smart device, wherein the at least one gesture is a facial expression that indicates a distress signal defined in the system”, “providing instructions to cause the smart device to record video”, “contacting the police station to report the distress signal at the ATM”, and “informing a bank manager of a bank associated with the ATM of the distress signal”.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
In regards to Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The generically recited computer elements (“a processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a smart device”, “an ATM”, “a police station”, and “a bank”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The extra-solution activities (“receiving at least one gesture from a smart device, wherein the at least one gesture is a facial expression that indicates a distress signal defined in the system”, “providing instructions to cause the smart device to record video”, “contacting the police station to report the distress signal at the ATM”, and “informing a bank manager of a bank associated with the ATM of the distress signal”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, as they are insignificant extra-solution activity;
The combination of the abstract idea with the additional elements (generically recited computer elements), and/or with the extra-solution activities, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
In regards to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because:
When considering the elements "alone and in combination" (“a processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “a smart device”, “an ATM”, “a police station”, and “a bank”), they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Instead, they merely add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In regards to the extra solution activities (“receiving at least one gesture from a smart device, wherein the at least one gesture is a facial expression that indicates a distress signal defined in the system”, “providing instructions to cause the smart device to record video”, “contacting the police station to report the distress signal at the ATM”, and “informing a bank manager of a bank associated with the ATM of the distress signal”), these are recognized as such by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the “receiving”, “providing instructions”, ” contacting”, and “informing” steps, see the court cases OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and (presenting offers and gathering statistics), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Moreover, in regards to “apply it”, according to MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2):
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Examiner holds that the independent claims “use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” or “simply add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected on the same grounds as independent claim 1. Independent claim 15 is also rejected on the grounds that it recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is merely another generic computer component.
All dependent claims are also rejected, because they merely further define the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-2022/0215375-A1 to Gupta (“Gupta. Filed Jan. 1, 2021) in view of US-11,907,346-B1 to Ramanathan et al. (“Ramanathan”. Filed on Jan. 15, 2021) and US 2016/0148488 A1 to Tijerina et al. (“Tijerina”, Filed on Nov. 24, 2014. Published on May 26, 2016), and further in view of US 2018/0137263 A1 to Kurian (“Kurian”, Filed on Nov. 16, 2016. Published on May 17, 2018).
In regards to claim 1,
1. A system comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium that includes instructions executable by the processor to perform operations comprising:
(See Gupta, para. [0010]: “One or more software modules may execute on the processors. The one or more software modules may be stored in a memory located within the smartglasses. The one or more software modules may, in the alternative, be referred to as applications. The applications may enable the smartglasses to execute various tasks.”)
receiving at least one gesture from a smart device,
(See Gupta, para. [0025]: “The interactive payment interface may also be referred to as a screen operable to be displayed on a smartglasses device. The screen may include selectable options. The selectable options may be selected by hand gestures.”)
(See Gupta, para. [0026]: “The ATM may also display an ATM operating system-based interactive payment interface on an ATM display. The ATM operating system-based interactive payment interface may replicate the smartglasses operating system-based interactive payment interface on the ATM display. As such, the ATM operating system-based interactive payment interface and the smartglasses operating system-based interactive payment interface appear to the user to be identical. However, the ATM operating system-based interactive payment interface may accept touch input and the smartglasses operating system-based interactive payment interface may accept hand gesture inputs.”)
(See Gupta, para. [0027]: “The smartglasses module may receive a hand gesture-based command. The hand gesture-based command may be received from the user. The hand gesture-based command may be a swipe, tap or any other suitable command.”)
(See Gupta, para. [0028]: “The smartglasses module may translate the at least one hand gesture-based command into an ATM-readable command. The smartglasses module may transmit the ATM-readable command to the ATM. The ATM may receive the ATM-readable command and process the ATM-readable command. The ATM may identify a response to the ATM-readable command. The ATM may transmit the response to the smartglasses module.”)
(See Gupta, para. [0029]: “The smartglasses module may receive the response from the ATM. The smartglasses modules may display the received response on the display included in the smartglasses.”)
altering an ATM operation based on the at least one gesture and providing instructions to cause the smart device to record video;
(See Gupta, para. [0047]: “FIG. 1 shows an illustrative diagram. In segment 102, a user is shown wearing smartglasses 106. Smartglasses 106 may include one or more microprocessors, one or more displays, one or more cameras for capturing photographs and/or videos, one or more audio input devices, one or more audio output devices and/or one or more wired and/or wireless communication modules (e.g. Bluetooth®, Beacon®). The display may display information alongside what the user sees through the lenses. View 108 shows what the user is currently viewing on the display.”)
(See Gupta, para. [0054]: “Smartglasses 206 may be operable to receive commands from a user. The commands may be received in different ways. For example, the commands may be received from the user via touch gestures to one or more dynamic or static buttons on smartglasses 206. The commands may also be received from the user via touch gestures to one or more portions of the frames of smartglasses 206. Touch gestures may include swiping, tapping and squeezing. Touch gestures may also include a pattern of any of the above-mentioned gestures. The commands may also be received from air-based hand and/or body gestures. Air-based hand and/or body gestures may be performed by the user's hand or body without specifically touching the smartglasses. Various sensors, such as an accelerometer, gyroscope and touch pad may sense the hand and/or air gestures. Upon sensing the hand and/or air gestures, the sensor(s) and/or associated processors may translate the hand and/or air gestures into commands. The commands may be based on a command structure received from an external processor. The command structure may be received from the ATM. The command structure may be a payment structure. Smartglasses 106 may transmit the identified commands to the ATM.”)
However, under a conservative interpretation of Gupta, Gupta’s para. [0054] teaches “Touch gestures” and “Air-based hand and/or body gestures may be performed by the user's hand or body without specifically touching the smartglasses”, it could be argued that Gupta does not explicitly teach the italicized portions below, which are taught by Ramanathan:
wherein the at least one gesture is a facial expression …;
(See Ramanathan, col. 6, line 53 to col. 7, line 10: “In some examples, all of the secure assets or a set of the secure assets shown in diagram 500 may use a single facial feature (which may include a gesture) to authenticate a user. In another example, each secure asset or each set of secure assets may have a unique facial feature or gesture to authenticate a user. For example, the bank 502, the ATM 506, and a banking app on the user device 506 may be operated by a single organization and share a facial feature, while a video conferencing session 510 the shop 504 may each respectively have a different facial feature or gesture to authenticate a single user. In another example, the bank 502, the ATM 506, and a banking app on the user device 508 may each have a dedicated facial feature or gesture for authentication. For example, a facial feature for the bank 502, the ATM 506, and the banking app on the user device 508 may all use an eye and eyebrow of a user to authenticate the user, with the bank 502 requiring no gesture, the ATM 506 requiring a wink gesture, and the banking app requiring an eyebrow raise. These different combinations provide further security for the user, since they may be kept secret. In some examples, the user device 508 may authenticate the user once for a set of apps, websites, or storage assets. In other examples, different apps, websites, or storage assets accessed using the user device 508 may have a different facial feature or gesture.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method for “Smart-glasses based contactless automated teller machine (“ATM”) transaction processing”, as taught by Gupta above, with “Facial feature analysis for authentication”, as further taught by Ramanathan above, because as Ramanathan teaches in col.1, lines 11-25: “Many authentication techniques exist, such as techniques using keys, passwords, biometrics, or the like. As the sophistication of authentication techniques increases, so too do attempts at circumventing access controls”, and therefore using facial recognition techniques is an improvement over the prior techniques.
However, under a conservative interpretation of Gupta, Gupta’s para. [0054] teaches “Touch gestures” and “Air-based hand and/or body gestures may be performed by the user's hand or body without specifically touching the smartglasses”, it could be argued that Gupta in view of Ramanathan does not explicitly teach the italicized portions below, which are taught by Tijerina:
wherein the at least one gesture is an … expression that indicates a distress signal defined in the system;
(See Tijerina, para. [0021]: “As a result of receiving a distress signal such as a distress identifier or gesture, the remote server may take a defensive action with respect to the transaction. Actions may include limiting the transaction to accessibility to a particular account or subaccount, locking down apps in a user device, limiting the transaction to a certain dollar amount, pulling funds from a certain account, turning on location tracking and/or a camera, alerting the authorities, etc.”)
(See Tijerina, para. [0022]: “In addition, according to various embodiments, the device may include an output device or component having a display component that may be customized based on a specific identifier such as a modified or alternate identifier or gesture, or a distress signal received from a user via a user interface. For example, the display component may be customized to show a different landing page than the normal landing page for a site or an account of the user, different profile pictures, a limited amount of available funds, limited personal information, e.g., no personal address, email or telephone numbers, etc. Also, a default view may be displayed differently to alert the user that a distress mode has been entered.”)
(See Tijerina, para. [0023]: “According to one or more embodiments of the present disclosure, a gradient of risk may be created. That is, in some embodiments, a user may alert the remote server that there is a potential risk with respect to a transaction, but the risk may be low such that the transaction should go through and be flagged and tracked, but it does not fail. In other embodiments, the user may alert the remote server that the risk is high such that the transaction should not go through. As such, the user may specify a risk gradient for a transaction. For instance, a user at an ATM may trigger tracking of a transaction or may go to an extreme such as terminating a transaction or having the authorities called depending on the specific identifier or gesture that the user enters. In an example, a user that is a victim of an attack such as mugging at an ATM may be forced to give out a PIN, and in this case, the user may give a PIN or enter the PIN in a certain way that is associated with a distress signal, which is received by a remote server and results in the remote server calling the authorities. In another example where the user is at the ATM, the user may enter, via a user interface of the ATM, a specific identifier such as a modified or alternate identifier or gesture, or may enter an identifier in a certain way that transmits a distress signal such that a display module of the ATM displays that the only available funds total $20. Preset information such as preset amounts may be determined and displayed in connection with certain specific identifiers, for example, the display may show that an amount of less than $500 is available if a certain modified identifier is entered or a certain gesture is detected. As such, the specific identifier such as a modified or alternate identifier or gesture may become a tool, not just a way for identification or authorization for a user.”)
verifying that the at least one gesture is the distress signal based on receiving a confirmation input, wherein the confirmation input is a second gesture that is different than the at least one gesture;
The Examiner interprets that this feature is mere duplication of parts (collecting gestures) for the purpose of authentication.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method for “Smart-glasses based contactless automated teller machine (“ATM”) transaction processing”, as taught by Gupta above, with “Facial feature analysis for authentication”, as further taught by Ramanathan above, and further in view of “Distress identifier to cause an action”, and further taught by Tijerina, because as Tijerina teaches in para. [0002]: “In these situations, the user may be concerned about using identifiers that may compromise the user's identity or security”.
However, under a conservative interpretation of Gupta in view of Ramanathan and Tijerina, it could be argued that Gupta in view of Ramanathan and Tijerina do not explicitly teach the italicized portions below, which are taught by Kurian:
identifying a police station located near an ATM associated with the ATM operation;
contacting the police station to report the distress signal at the ATM; and
informing a bank manager of a bank associated with the ATM of the distress signal.
(See Kurian, para. [0056]: “In another example, if a pre-defined activation phrase is received, the system may activate a particular mode and/or take another action. For example, a distress phrase may be pre-associated with a distress mode, so if the distress phrase is received, a distress mode may be activated, an emergency number (e.g., 911) may be called, a text message may be sent, or the like. The distress mode may, in some embodiments, be similar to a hidden or listen-only mode, so that the system is not obviously in a distress mode. Thus, if an intruder enters a vehicle, the driver or passenger may speak a distress word or phrase, which may activate a distress mode or call for help, without providing an indication of the distress mode or call for help. In some embodiments, the system may provide an indication of the distress mode that is a disguised indication. For example, a light may blink, a feature may be activated or deactivated (e.g., the radio may turn on or off, cruise control may be turned on or off, a light or lights may turn on or off, or the like), a non-distress and non-suspicious phrase may be announced (e.g., “speed camera ahead”), or the like. This may provide confirmation to the driver or passenger of the activation of the distress mode, without causing suspicion to the intruder. ”)
The Examiner interprets that Kurian’s teaching that “an emergency number (e.g., 911) may be called, a text message may be sent, or the like” is functionally equivalent to the claimed features of “identifying a police station located near an ATM associated with the ATM operation”, “contacting the police station to report the distress signal at the ATM” and “informing a bank manager of a bank associated with the ATM of the distress signal”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method for “Smart-glasses based contactless automated teller machine (“ATM”) transaction processing”, as taught by Gupta above, with “Facial feature analysis for authentication”, as further taught by Ramanathan above, with “Distress identifier to cause an action”, as further taught by Tijerina, with “Preventing unauthorized access to secured information using identification techniques”, as further taught by Kurian above, because informing others (e.g. police, bank) helps to ensure that the police are informed, and that the criminals are eventually caught.
In regards to claim 2,
2. The system of claim 1, further comprising a sensing device that comprises the smart device that is positionable to detect a set of contactless gestures from a user, and
(See Gupta, para. [0054]: “Smartglasses 206 may be operable to receive commands from a user. The commands may be received in different ways. For example, the commands may be received from the user via touch gestures to one or more dynamic or static buttons on smartglasses 206. The commands may also be received from the user via touch gestures to one or more portions of the frames of smartglasses 206. Touch gestures may include swiping, tapping and squeezing. Touch gestures may also include a pattern of any of the above-mentioned gestures. The commands may also be received from air-based hand and/or body gestures. Air-based hand and/or body gestures may be performed by the user's hand or body without specifically touching the smartglasses. Various sensors, such as an accelerometer, gyroscope and touch pad may sense the hand and/or air gestures. Upon sensing the hand and/or air gestures, the sensor(s) and/or associated processors may translate the hand and/or air gestures into commands. The commands may be based on a command structure received from an external processor. The command structure may be received from the ATM. The command structure may be a payment structure. Smartglasses 106 may transmit the identified commands to the ATM.”)
wherein the distress signal is a predefined signal in a library of different signals associated with a set of contactless gestures.
(See Ramanathan, col. 6, line 53 to col. 7, line 10: “In some examples, all of the secure assets or a set of the secure assets shown in diagram 500 may use a single facial feature (which may include a gesture) to authenticate a user. In another example, each secure asset or each set of secure assets may have a unique facial feature or gesture to authenticate a user. For example, the bank 502, the ATM 506, and a banking app on the user device 506 may be operated by a single organization and share a facial feature, while a video conferencing session 510 the shop 504 may each respectively have a different facial feature or gesture to authenticate a single user. In another example, the bank 502, the ATM 506, and a banking app on the user device 508 may each have a dedicated facial feature or gesture for authentication. For example, a facial feature for the bank 502, the ATM 506, and the banking app on the user device 508 may all use an eye and eyebrow of a user to authenticate the user, with the bank 502 requiring no gesture, the ATM 506 requiring a wink gesture, and the banking app requiring an eyebrow raise. These different combinations provide further security for the user, since they may be kept secret. In some examples, the user device 508 may authenticate the user once for a set of apps, websites, or storage assets. In other examples, different apps, websites, or storage assets accessed using the user device 508 may have a different facial feature or gesture.”)
In regards to claim 3,
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving a notification of the at least one gesture of the set of contactless gestures from the smart device; and
(See Gupta, para. [0054]: “Smartglasses 206 may be operable to receive commands from a user. The commands may be received in different ways. For example, the commands may be received from the user via touch gestures to one or more dynamic or static buttons on smartglasses 206. The commands may also be received from the user via touch gestures to one or more portions of the frames of smartglasses 206. Touch gestures may include swiping, tapping and squeezing. Touch gestures may also include a pattern of any of the above-mentioned gestures. The commands may also be received from air-based hand and/or body gestures. Air-based hand and/or body gestures may be performed by the user's hand or body without specifically touching the smartglasses. Various sensors, such as an accelerometer, gyroscope and touch pad may sense the hand and/or air gestures. Upon sensing the hand and/or air gestures, the sensor(s) and/or associated processors may translate the hand and/or air gestures into commands. The commands may be based on a command structure received from an external processor. The command structure may be received from the ATM. The command structure may be a payment structure. Smartglasses 106 may transmit the identified commands to the ATM.”)
receiving an input from the user to select an automated teller machine (ATM) operation.
(See Gupta, para. [0028]: “The smartglasses module may translate the at least one hand gesture-based command into an ATM-readable command. The smartglasses module may transmit the ATM-readable command to the ATM. The ATM may receive the ATM-readable command and process the ATM-readable command. The ATM may identify a response to the ATM-readable command. The ATM may transmit the response to the smartglasses module.”)
In regards to claim 4,
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise transmitting a request separate from the ATM operation based on a predetermined meaning of the at least one gesture.
(See Tijerina, para. [0023]: “According to one or more embodiments of the present disclosure, a gradient of risk may be created. That is, in some embodiments, a user may alert the remote server that there is a potential risk with respect to a transaction, but the risk may be low such that the transaction should go through and be flagged and tracked, but it does not fail. In other embodiments, the user may alert the remote server that the risk is high such that the transaction should not go through. As such, the user may specify a risk gradient for a transaction. For instance, a user at an ATM may trigger tracking of a transaction or may go to an extreme such as terminating a transaction or having the authorities called depending on the specific identifier or gesture that the user enters. In an example, a user that is a victim of an attack such as mugging at an ATM may be forced to give out a PIN, and in this case, the user may give a PIN or enter the PIN in a certain way that is associated with a distress signal, which is received by a remote server and results in the remote server calling the authorities. In another example where the user is at the ATM, the user may enter, via a user interface of the ATM, a specific identifier such as a modified or alternate identifier or gesture, or may enter an identifier in a certain way that transmits a distress signal such that a display module of the ATM displays that the only available funds total $20. Preset information such as preset amounts may be determined and displayed in connection with certain specific identifiers, for example, the display may show that an amount of less than $500 is available if a certain modified identifier is entered or a certain gesture is detected. As such, the specific identifier such as a modified or alternate identifier or gesture may become a tool, not just a way for identification or authorization for a user.”)
In regards to claim 5,
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the smart device comprises a smart watch.
(See Tijerina, para. [0031]: “Device 110 and recipient server or device 130 may be implemented using any appropriate hardware and software configured for wired and/or wireless communication between device 110, recipient server or device 130, and/or remote server 150. For example, in one embodiment, device 110 may be implemented as a user device (e.g., associated with user 102) including a personal computer (PC), a mobile device such as a smart phone, a laptop/tablet computer, a wristwatch with appropriate computer hardware resources, eyeglasses with appropriate computer hardware (e.g. GOOGLE GLASS®), other types of wearable computing devices, and/or other types of computing devices capable of transmitting and/or receiving data, such as an IPAD® from APPLE®.”)
In regards to claim 6,
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the confirmation input comprises a passcode associated with the at least one gesture to confirm a predetermined meaning of the distress signal.
(See Tijerina, para. [0023]: “According to one or more embodiments of the present disclosure, a gradient of risk may be created. That is, in some embodiments, a user may alert the remote server that there is a potential risk with respect to a transaction, but the risk may be low such that the transaction should go through and be flagged and tracked, but it does not fail. In other embodiments, the user may alert the remote server that the risk is high such that the transaction should not go through. As such, the user may specify a risk gradient for a transaction. For instance, a user at an ATM may trigger tracking of a transaction or may go to an extreme such as terminating a transaction or having the authorities called depending on the specific identifier or gesture that the user enters. In an example, a user that is a victim of an attack such as mugging at an ATM may be forced to give out a PIN, and in this case, the user may give a PIN or enter the PIN in a certain way that is associated with a distress signal, which is received by a remote server and results in the remote server calling the authorities. In another example where the user is at the ATM, the user may enter, via a user interface of the ATM, a specific identifier such as a modified or alternate identifier or gesture, or may enter an identifier in a certain way that transmits a distress signal such that a display module of the ATM displays that the only available funds total $20. Preset information such as preset amounts may be determined and displayed in connection with certain specific identifiers, for example, the display may show that an amount of less than $500 is available if a certain modified identifier is entered or a certain gesture is detected. As such, the specific identifier such as a modified or alternate identifier or gesture may become a tool, not just a way for identification or authorization for a user.”)
In regards to claim 7,
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one gesture is a first facial expression, and wherein the second gesture is a second facial expression that is different from the first facial expression.
(See Tijerina, para. [0023]: “According to one or more embodiments of the present disclosure, a gradient of risk may be created. That is, in some embodiments, a user may alert the remote server that there is a potential risk with respect to a transaction, but the risk may be low such that the transaction should go through and be flagged and tracked, but it does not fail. In other embodiments, the user may alert the remote server that the risk is high such that the transaction should not go through. As such, the user may specify a risk gradient for a transaction. For instance, a user at an ATM may trigger tracking of a transaction or may go to an extreme such as terminating a transaction or having the authorities called depending on the specific identifier or gesture that the user enters. In an example, a user that is a victim of an attack such as mugging at an ATM may be forced to give out a PIN, and in this case, the user may give a PIN or enter the PIN in a certain way that is associated with a distress signal, which is received by a remote server and results in the remote server calling the authorities. In another example where the user is at the ATM, the user may enter, via a user interface of the ATM, a specific identifier such as a modified or alternate identifier or gesture, or may enter an identifier in a certain way that transmits a distress signal such that a display module of the ATM displays that the only available funds total $20. Preset information such as preset amounts may be determined and displayed in connection with certain specific identifiers, for example, the display may show that an amount of less than $500 is available if a certain modified identifier is entered or a certain gesture is detected. As such, the specific identifier such as a modified or alternate identifier or gesture may become a tool, not just a way for identification or authorization for a user.”)
The Examiner interprets that the claimed features of claim 7 are a mere duplication of parts.
In regards to claim 8, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
In regards to claim 9, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
In regards to claim 10, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
In regards to claim 11, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
In regards to claim 12, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
In regards to claim 13, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
In regards to claim 14, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
In regards to claim 15, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
In regards to claim 16, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
In regards to claim 17, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
In regards to claim 18, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
In regards to claim 19, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
In regards to claim 20, it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Examiner Ayal Sharon, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5614, and fax number is (571) 273-1794. The Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 6 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Christine Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103 or at christine.behncke@uspto.gov. The fax 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.
Sincerely,
/Ayal I. Sharon/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights