DETAILED ACTION
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 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a process (i.e. a method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves providing access, to a first mobile device in a vicinity of an ATM, to enable a first user to select an option to access banking services offered at the ATM using the first mobile device; verifying that the first user has permission to access the banking services offered at the ATM based on user identification information submitted via the first mobile device; after verification of the user identification information, enabling the user to access the banking services at the ATM to perform a first banking transaction with the first mobile device and to view information related to the banking services on the first mobile device; and while the first mobile device is enabled to allow user access to the banking services using the first mobile device:
disabling selectability of the banking services using a screen of the ATM;
presenting on the first mobile device a first menu of banking options that replicates a second menu of banking options that is available on the ATM when the first mobile device is not enabled and providing the user access to the banking services using the first menu on the first mobile device; displaying on a screen of the ATM a message that indicates that the ATM is in use; and communicating with a second mobile device to prepare for the second mobile device to perform a second banking transaction using the ATM after use of the ATM by the first mobile device has concluded, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (banking transaction(s)); commercial or legal interactions (banking transaction(s)); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (providing, verifying, enabling, disabling, presenting, displaying, communicating, etc.).
The mere nominal recitation of “conducted at an automated teller machine (ATM) using a mobile device” (preamble only); “by an ATM processor” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to providing access, to a first mobile device in a vicinity of an ATM, to enable a first user to select an option to access banking services offered at the ATM using the first mobile device; verifying that the first user has permission to access the banking services offered at the ATM based on user identification information submitted via the first mobile device; after verification of the user identification information, enabling the user to access the banking services at the ATM to perform a first banking transaction with the first mobile device and to view information related to the banking services on the first mobile device; and while the first mobile device is enabled to allow user access to the banking services using the first mobile device: disabling selectability of the banking services using a screen of the ATM; presenting on the first mobile device a first menu of banking options that replicates a second menu of banking options that is available on the ATM when the first mobile device is not enabled and providing the user access to the banking services using the first menu on the first mobile device; displaying on a screen of the ATM a message that indicates that the ATM is in use; and communicating with a second mobile device to prepare for the second mobile device to perform a second banking transaction using the ATM after use of the ATM by the first mobile device has concluded.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “conducted at an automated teller machine (ATM) using a mobile device” (preamble only)/ “by an ATM processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “conducted at an automated teller machine (ATM) using a mobile device” (preamble only)/ “by an ATM processor” language, the claim encompasses the user manually providing access, to a first mobile device in a vicinity of an ATM, to enable a first user to select an option to access banking services offered at the ATM using the first mobile device; verifying that the first user has permission to access the banking services offered at the ATM based on user identification information submitted via the first mobile device; after verification of the user identification information, enabling the user to access the banking services at the ATM to perform a first banking transaction with the first mobile device and to view information related to the banking services on the first mobile device; and while the first mobile device is enabled to allow user access to the banking services using the first mobile device: disabling selectability of the banking services using a screen of the ATM; presenting on the first mobile device a first menu of banking options that replicates a second menu of banking options that is available on the ATM when the first mobile device is not enabled and providing the user access to the banking services using the first menu on the first mobile device; displaying on a screen of the ATM a message that indicates that the ATM is in use; and communicating with a second mobile device to prepare for the second mobile device to perform a second banking transaction using the ATM after use of the ATM by the first mobile device has concluded.
The mere nominal recitation of “conducted at an automated teller machine (ATM) using a mobile device” (preamble only); “by an ATM processor” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “conducted at an automated teller machine (ATM) using a mobile device” (preamble only). The claim recites the combination of additional elements of an “ATM processor” performing some of the positively recited steps or acts (e.g., “providing”, “verifying”, “disabling”, communicating”, etc.). The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “using short range wireless communication” for some of the positively recited steps (e.g., “providing”, “enabling”, “communicating”, etc.). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “communicating”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “verifying”, “enabling”, “disabling”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data display (e.g., “presenting”, “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering banking transaction data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: (a) The steps are exclusively from the perspective of the “automated teller machine (ATM)”(preamble only)/ “an ATM processor”. (b) Although a “mobile device” (preamble only), “first mobile device” and “second mobile device” are referenced in the claim, the claimed invention is not from the perspective of the “mobile device” (preamble only), “first mobile device” and “second mobile device” and the “mobile device” (preamble only), “first mobile device” and “second mobile device” do not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 07/31/25 does not provide any indication that the technology is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Rodriguez, US Pub. No. 2022/0138746; Yaqub, US Pub. No. 2022/0058601; Sheth, US Pub. No. 2023/0027573; Iqbal, US Pub. No. 2015/0287018; Recriwal, US Pub. No. 2017/0124544; Grossman, US Pub. No. 2022/04057725; Phillips, US Pat. No. 11,073,871; Arumugam, US Pat. No. 10,445,711; and Pathak, US Pub. No. 2023/0028010 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “communicating”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “verifying”, “enabling”, “disabling”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data display (e.g., “presenting”, “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “communicating”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “verifying”, “enabling”, “disabling”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data display (e.g., “presenting”, “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018) (displaying and disseminating financial information) and Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized web pages) indicate displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 16 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 1 and 3 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez, US Pub. No. 2022/0138746 in view of Yaqub, US Pub. No. 2022/0058601; Sheth, US Pub. No. 2023/0027573; and Iqbal, US Pub. No. 2015/0287018.
Re Claim 1: Rodriguez discloses a method for enabling banking transactions to be conducted at an automated teller machine (ATM) using a mobile device for user interaction with the ATM, the method comprising:
providing access, by an ATM processor to a first mobile device in a vicinity of an ATM using short range wireless communication, to enable a first user to select an option to access banking services offered at the ATM using the first mobile device (Rodriguez, abstract, Fig. 3, [0006] [0007] [0015] [0016] [0030] [0033] [0058] [0060] [0061] [0062][0074] [0082]);
verifying, by the ATM processor, that the first user has permission to access the banking services offered at the ATM based on user identification information submitted via the first mobile device (Rodriguez, abstract, Fig. 3, [0005] [0008] [0014] [0017] [0030] [0058] [0075] [0082]);
after verification of the user identification information, enabling the user to access the banking services at the ATM to perform a first banking transaction using short range wireless communication with the first mobile device and to view information related to the banking services on the first mobile device (Rodriguez, abstract, Fig. 3, [0005] [0009] [0014] [0018] [0030] [0033] [0060] [00062] [0076]); and
while the first mobile device is enabled to allow user access to the banking services using the first mobile device (Rodriguez, [0072] [0073]):
disabling, by the ATM processor, selectability of the banking services using a screen of the ATM (Rodriguez, [0072] [0073]);
providing the user access to the banking services using the first menu on the first mobile device (Rodriguez, abstract, Fig. 3, [0006] [0007] [0015] [0016] [0030] [0033] [0058] [0061] [0074] [0082]);
Although Rodriguez discloses providing the user access to the banking services using the first menu on the first mobile device; Rodriguez fails to explicitly disclose presenting on the first mobile device a first menu of banking options that replicates a second menu of banking options that is available on the ATM when the first mobile device is not enabled;
Rodriguez fails to explicitly disclose:
displaying on a screen of the ATM a message that indicates that the ATM is in use; and communicating, by the ATM processor using short range wireless communication, with a second mobile device to prepare for the second mobile device to perform a second banking transaction using the ATM after use of the ATM by the first mobile device has concluded.
Yaqub discloses:
presenting on the first mobile device a first menu of banking options that replicates a second menu of banking options that is available on the ATM when the first mobile device is not enabled (Yaqub, abstract, [0005] [0006] [0020] [0022]);
Sheth discloses:
displaying on a screen of the ATM a message that indicates that the ATM is in use (Sheth, abstract, [0005] [0006] [0014] [0034] [0058]); and
Iqbal discloses:
communicating, by the ATM processor using short range wireless communication, with a second mobile device to prepare for the second mobile device to perform a second banking transaction using the ATM after use of the ATM by the first mobile device has concluded (Iqbal, [0046] [0063] [0085] [0093] [0094] [0095] [0097]).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Rodriguez, Yaqub, Sheth and Iqbal are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to automated teller machine (ATM) or point-of-sale device (POS). In this case, Rodriguez, Yaqub, Sheth and Iqbal are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of using a mobile device to engage in banking functions on an automated teller machine (ATM) or a point-of-sale device (POS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Rodriguez by adopting the teachings of Yaqub, Sheth and Iqbal to provide presenting on the first mobile device a first menu of banking options that replicates a second menu of banking options that is available on the ATM when the first mobile device is not enabled and providing the user access to the banking services using the first menu on the first mobile device; displaying on a screen of the ATM a message that indicates that the ATM is in use; and communicating, by the ATM processor using short range wireless communication, with a second mobile device to prepare for the second mobile device to perform a second banking transaction using the ATM after use of the ATM by the first mobile device has concluded.
One would have been motivated to improve speed and convenience.
The claimed invention uses known techniques to improve a similar invention in the same way. The claimed invention applies known techniques to a known method invention ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 3: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra and Yaqub further discloses wherein the first mobile device is a vehicle-installed computing device (Yaqub, abstract, [0005] [0006] [0020] [0022]).
Re Claim 4: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra and Rodriguez further discloses enabling the user to elect, via the first mobile device, to perform a deposit or a withdrawal at the ATM while not permitting the user to select the banking transaction at the ATM (Rodriguez, [0073] [0077]).
Re Claim 5: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra and Rodriguez further discloses accepting the deposit or dispensing the withdrawal at the ATM (Rodriguez, [0073] [0077]).
Re Claim 6: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra and Rodriguez further discloses wherein the ATM provides access to the first mobile device using the short range wireless communication via one or more of near-field communication (NFC) or Bluetooth (Rodriguez, abstract, Fig. 3, [0005] [0014] [0030] [0033] [0058] [0058] [0060] [0062] [0079] [0082]).
Re Claim 7: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra and Iqbal further discloses verifying a presence of the first mobile device in the vicinity of the ATM using a mobile communications network before enabling the user to access the banking services (Iqbal, abstract, Fig. 1, [0009] [0010] [0011] [0041] [0045] [0063] [0064] [0085] [0086]).
Re Claim 8: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra and Rodriguez wherein a presence of the first mobile device in the vicinity of the ATM is verified using a Global Positioning System (GPS) (Rodriguez, abstract, Fig. 3, [0005] [0014] [0030] [0033] [0058] [0058] [0060] [0062] [0079] [0082] [0112]).
Re Claim 9: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra and Iqbal further discloses wherein the ATM and the first mobile device are further configured to communicate via a mobile communications network (Iqbal, Fig. 1, [0045]).
Re Claim 10: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra and Rodriguez transmitting, by the ATM processor to the first mobile device, a link for the first mobile device to access a mobile application (Rodriguez, abstract, Fig. 3, [0006] [0007] [0015] [0016] [0030] [0033] [0058] [0061] [0074] [0082]);
wherein the mobile application provides an interface for entry of user identification information and for access to the banking services offered at the ATM (Rodriguez, abstract, Fig. 3, [0006] [0007] [0015] [0016] [0030] [0033] [0058] [0061] [0074] [0082]).
Re Claim 11: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra and Rodriguez wherein: the link is configured to trigger a launch of the mobile application when the link is accessed on the first mobile device that provides an interface for entry of user identification information and for access to the banking services offered at the ATM (Rodriguez, abstract, Fig. 3, [0006] [0007] [0015] [0016] [0030] [0033] [0058] [0061] [0074] [0082]).
Re Claim 12: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra and Rodriguez pushing, by the ATM processor, of a mobile application for installation on the mobile device to access banking services to the first mobile device (Rodriguez, abstract, Fig. 3, [0006] [0007] [0015] [0016] [0030] [0033] [0058] [0061] [0074] [0082]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Recriwal, US Pub. No. 2017/0124544.
Re Claim 2: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose wherein interaction between the ATM and the first mobile device is touchless, and the ATM is configured to be securely accessible with the first mobile device without using an electronic card, separate from the first mobile device, for the first mobile device to initiate wireless communication with or to access the banking services at the ATM.
Recriwal discloses:
wherein interaction between the ATM and the first mobile device is touchless, and the ATM is configured to be securely accessible with the first mobile device without using an electronic card, separate from the first mobile device, for the first mobile device to initiate wireless communication with or to access the banking services at the ATM (Recriwal, abstract, [0007] [0011] [0024] [0027]).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Recriwal is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to automated teller machine (ATM) or point-of-sale device (POS). In this case, Recriwal is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of using a mobile device to engage in banking functions on an automated teller machine (ATM) or a point-of-sale device (POS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Rodriguez in view of Yaqub, Sheth and Iqbal by further adopting the teachings of Recriwal to provide wherein interaction between the ATM and the first mobile device is touchless, and the ATM is configured to be securely accessible with the first mobile device without using an electronic card, separate from the first mobile device, for the first mobile device to initiate wireless communication with or to access the banking services at the ATM.
One would have been motivated to increase convenience and flexibility.
The claimed invention uses known techniques to improve a similar invention in the same way. The claimed invention applies known techniques to a known method invention ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grossman, US Pub. No. 2022/0405725.
Re Claim 13: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the step of verifying, by the ATM processor at the ATM, that the user has permission to access banking services offered at the ATM comprises multi- factor authentication.
Grossman discloses:
wherein the step of verifying, by the ATM processor at the ATM, that the user has permission to access banking services offered at the ATM comprises multi- factor authentication (Grossman, [0035]).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Grossman is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to automated teller machine (ATM) or point-of-sale device (POS). In this case, Grossman is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of using a mobile device to engage in banking functions on an automated teller machine (ATM) or a point-of-sale device (POS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal by further adopting the teachings of Grossman to provide wherein the step of verifying, by the ATM processor at the ATM, that the user has permission to access banking services offered at the ATM comprises multi- factor authentication.
One would have been motivated to improve security.
The claimed invention uses known techniques to improve a similar invention in the same way. The claimed invention applies known techniques to a known method invention ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phillips, US Pat. No. 11,023,871.
Re Claim 14: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra and Rodriquez further discloses:
receiving, by the ATM processor using short range wireless communication, a request from the mobile device to initiate the first banking transaction using the ATM (Rodriguez, [0062] [0077] [0079] [0080]), and
Rodriguez fails to explicitly disclose:
performing, by the ATM processor, the first banking transaction after the verification of the user identification information, wherein the first banking transaction comprises one of: a cash withdrawal; a deposit of cash or a check; an electronic funds transfer; a check balance transaction; or an electronic payment.
Phillips discloses:
performing, by the ATM processor, the first banking transaction after the verification of the user identification information, wherein the first banking transaction comprises one of: a cash withdrawal; a deposit of cash or a check; an electronic funds transfer; a check balance transaction; or an electronic payment (Phillips, col. 4, line 23+ - col. 5, line 26).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Phillips is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to automated teller machine (ATM) or point-of-sale device (POS). In this case, Phillips is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of using a mobile device to engage in banking functions on an automated teller machine (ATM) or a point-of-sale device (POS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal by further adopting the teachings of Phillips to provide performing, by the ATM processor, the first banking transaction after the verification of the user identification information, wherein the first banking transaction comprises one of: a cash withdrawal; a deposit of cash or a check; an electronic funds transfer; a check balance transaction; or an electronic payment.
One would have been motivated to improve speed and convenience.
The claimed invention uses known techniques to improve a similar invention in the same way. The claimed invention applies known techniques to a known method invention ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arumugam, US Pat. No. 10,445,711.
Re Claim 15: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the screen on the ATM remains inactive while the first mobile device is enabled for the user to access the banking services using the first mobile device.
Arumugam discloses:
wherein: the screen on the ATM remains inactive while the first mobile device is enabled for the user to access the banking services using the first mobile device (Arumugam, col. 8, lines 11 - 44).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Arumugam is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to automated teller machine (ATM) or point-of-sale device (POS). In this case, Arumugam is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of using a mobile device to engage in banking functions on an automated teller machine (ATM) or a point-of-sale device (POS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal by further adopting the teachings of Arumugam to provide wherein: the screen on the ATM remains inactive while the first mobile device is enabled for the user to access the banking services using the first mobile device.
One would have been motivated to improve profits, convenience and relevance.
The claimed invention uses known techniques to improve a similar invention in the same way. The claimed invention applies known techniques to a known method invention ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pathak, US Pub. No. 2023/0028010.
Re Claim 16: Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose obtaining, by the ATM processor from the first mobile device, one or more images or video with a camera on the mobile device to monitor security near the mobile device.
Pathak discloses:
obtaining, by the ATM processor from the first mobile device, one or more images or video with a camera on the mobile device to monitor security near the mobile device (Pathak, abstract, [0007] [0032] [0062] [0073] [0080] [0082] [0083] [0085]).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Pathak is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to automated teller machine (ATM) or point-of-sale device (POS). In this case, Pathak is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of using a mobile device to engage in banking functions on an automated teller machine (ATM) or a point-of-sale device (POS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Rodriguez in view of Yaqub; Sheth; and Iqbal by further adopting the teachings of Pathak to provide obtaining, by the ATM processor from the first mobile device, one or more images or video with a camera on the mobile device to monitor security near the mobile device.
One would have been motivated to improve security.
The claimed invention uses known techniques to improve a similar invention in the same way. The claimed invention applies known techniques to a known method invention ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights