DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the claims filed 11/06/2025.
Claims 1-21 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application PCT/EP2024/062065 under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) is acknowledged and granted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/05/2025 has been received, considered as indicated, and placed on record in the file.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of predictive modeling of cash flow projections without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method, and independent claim 15 and 16 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a system and independent claim 14 all claims which depend from it are directed toward a computer readable medium storing instruction to perform functions/steps. As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A method performed by a processor of a financial application terminal, the method comprising: determine, whether one or more properties of a communication between the financial application terminal and a financial application card fulfill a reference criterion, wherein the communication is in accordance with an authentication protocol to authenticate a user of the financial application terminal; andgenerate a signal representing a result of the determination”.
Claim 14 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computer-readable medium storing instructions, which are configured, when executed by a processor, to cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1”.
Claim 15 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A control device comprising one or more than one processor configured to perform the method of any one of claim 1”.
Claim 16 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A financial application terminal, comprising: a processor configured to perform the method of one of claims claim 1 a card interface”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Predictive modeling of cash flow projections is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: a processor; terminal; a communication is in accordance with an authentication protocol; a computer-readable medium storing instructions. However, the specification description of the additional elements a processor ([0007]); terminal ([0012]); a communication is in accordance with an authentication protocol ([0020]); a computer-readable medium storing instructions ([0010]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-13, 15, and 16-21 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smets (PGPub Document No. 20140365776).
As per claim 1, Smets teaches a method ([Figure 11]) performed by a processor of a financial application terminal (transaction device) ([Figure 1(b), element 106] [0090]), the method comprising: determine, whether one or more properties of a communication between the financial application terminal and a financial application card fulfill a reference criterion, wherein the communication is in accordance with an authentication protocol to authenticate a user of the financial application terminal ([0164-0197] ([0204] “…The transaction device 160 can then determine at step 198 whether to approve or decline a payment transaction based on whether the transaction data meets predetermined criteria…”); and generate a signal representing a result of the determination ([0204] “…The transaction device 160 can then determine at step 198 whether to approve or decline a payment transaction based on whether the transaction data meets predetermined criteria…”).
As per claim 2,
The method of claim 1, wherein the communication between the financial application terminal and the financial application card is contact-based ([0169] “…A transaction device 102 may expose one or more communication interfaces towards the POI 114, e.g. contact, contactless, USB, Wifi, Bluetooth, GPRS etc…”).
As per claim 3,
Smets teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the authentication protocol is in accordance with an EMV protocol ([0002]).
As per claim 4,
Smets teaches the method of one of claim 1, wherein the one or more properties of the communication comprise one or more of the following: a runtime of the communication ([0017] “…a comparison of the time parameter and the further time parameter…”); a content of the communication (handshake communication [Figure 13]); a consistency of the communication with data read from a storage, preferably a magnetic storage, of the financial application card; and a request of the user initiating the communication, preferably including a request to dispense cash to the user.
As per claim 5,
Smets teaches the method claim 4, wherein the reference criterion is fulfilled, when the runtime is in accordance with a reference runtime, preferably, in accordance with a reference runtime distribution ([0017] “…a comparison of the time parameter and the further time parameter…”).
As per claim 6,
Smets teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the reference criterion is fulfilled, when the direction of the communication is from the card to the financial application terminal ([0272]).
As per claim 7,
Smets teaches the method of one of claim 4, wherein the reference criterion is fulfilled, when the data read from the storage is consistent with data provided by the processor of the financial application card ([0141-0146] “…PIN (verified by the transaction device)…”).
As per claim 8,
Smets teaches the method of one of claim 4, wherein the reference criterion is fulfilled, when the content differs from one or more reference contents ([0011-0013] [0147]).
As per claim 9,
Smets teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more reference contents comprise one or more of the following: cryptographic secured content, preferably secured in accordance with the authentication protocol; an authentication code; content related to the request of the user to dispense cash to the user; and/or a hardcoded response of the financial application card ([0005] “…the second communication having been generated according to the Diffie-Hellman protocol, the processor is arranged to apply the randomly generated blinding factor and generate a shared secret according to the DiffieHellman protocol in dependence on data contained within the second communication…” [0007] “…processor is arranged to use an elliptic Diffie-Hellman protocol. The device may comprise a static
public key Qc…”).
As per claim 10,
Smets teaches the method of one of claim 1, further including: select the one or more properties from a set of reference properties based on a runtime of the communication ([0246] “…a comparison of the time parameter and the further time parameter…”).
As per claim 11,
Smets teaches the method of one of claim 1, wherein the signal includes an instruction to: retain the card; abort the communication; and/or reject a request of the user relating to the authentication ([0246-0256]).
As per claim 12,
Smets teaches the method of one of claim 1, wherein the signal includes an instruction to: reject a subsequent authentication of the user for a reference duration and/or at another terminal; monitor a subsequent authentication of the user within a reference interval and/or at another terminal; and/or report a subsequent authentication of the user to a reference recipient for a reference duration and/or at another terminal ([0246-0256]).
As per claim 13,
Smets teaches the method of one of claim 1, further including: provide one or more financial applications based on a result of the authentication and on the signal ([0204] “…The transaction device 160 can then determine at step 198 whether to approve or decline a payment transaction based on whether the transaction data meets predetermined criteria…”).
As per claim 14,
Smets teaches a computer-readable medium storing instructions, which are configured, when executed by a processor, to cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1 ([0053-0054] [claim 57]).
As per claim 15,
Smets teaches a control device comprising one or more than one processor configured to perform the method of any one of claim 1 ([Figure 1(b), element 106] [0090]).
As per claim 16,
Smets teaches a financial application terminal, comprising: a processor configured to perform the method of one of claims claim 1 a card interface ([Figure 1(b), element 106] [0090]).
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 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.
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smets (PGPub Document No. 20140365776) in view of Farivar (PGPub Document No. 20210150863).
As per claim 17,
Smets does not teach the claim limits.
Farivar teaches the financial application terminal of claim 16, further comprising: a cash storage device configured for storing the cash, wherein the cash storage device comprises preferably a safe and/or one or more cassette receiving slots for receiving a cash storing cassette ([0020] “…cash port…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the atm of farivar with the electronic authentication systems in order to dispense cash and detect fraud. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 18,
Smets does not teach the claim limits.
Farivar teaches the financial application terminal of claim 16, further comprising: a cash exchange device, configured to exchange cash with the user of the financial application terminal (ATM [0016]).
As per claim 19,
Smets does not teach the claim limits.
Farivar teaches the financial application terminal of claim 16, further comprising: a cash transfer device configured for transferring the cash between the cash exchange device and the cash storage device ([0020]).
As per claim 20,
Smets does not teach the claim limits.
Farivar teaches the financial application terminal of one of claim 16, further comprising: a user interface, preferably comprising a display, to communicate with the user ([0018] “…display…”).
As per claim 21,
Smets does not teach the claim limits.
Farivar teaches the financial application terminal of claim 20, wherein the user interface comprises a user authentication device configured to receive one or more authentication information of the user of the financial application terminal to authenticate the user in accordance with the authentication protocol ([0018] “…display…”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
09/30/2026
