US 6289319

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 6,289,319.

Summary of U.S. Patent 6,289,319

Title: Automatic business and financial transaction processing system

Assignee: The patent is listed as assigned to "Individual."

Inventor: Lawrence B. Lockwood

Filing Date: November 30, 1994

Issue Date: September 11, 2001

Abstract: The patent describes a system for processing applications, such as for loans, from multiple remote locations. It involves self-service terminals connected to a financial institution's computer and a credit reporting service's computer. These terminals feature a video screen that simulates a loan officer to guide an applicant through the application process. The system is designed to automatically gather credit rating information for the applicant, assess their creditworthiness, determine a loan amount, and then transmit the approved loan details to the financial institution for further processing.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

This patent contains one independent claim.

Claim 1: This claim describes a comprehensive system for conducting business and financial transactions from remote locations. In simple terms, it covers a network where:

• A central computer at a business is set up to handle various inquiries and orders.
• This central computer can receive and store information from remote terminals.
• At least one remote terminal is available for users, which has its own processor and software.
• The terminal is connected to the central computer to send and receive data.
• The terminal provides information and services, featuring a video screen and a way for users to manually enter information.
• It can store the user's transaction details and data received from the central computer.
• The system can instantly send information back and forth, allowing for a real-time, interactive experience where users can get information and place orders over a period of time.

It is important to note that a direct search of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for 2026 did not yield any specific results for this patent. Information regarding litigation history found on other public sources suggests past legal disputes, but specific details for 2026 from the CAFC were not available. The bibliographic data presented here has been confirmed through the USPTO's public patent database.

U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319, titled "Automatic business and financial transaction processing system," has been the subject of extensive litigation, with its owner asserting it against a wide array of companies, primarily in the e-commerce sector. The litigation campaigns have been conducted by entities controlled by the inventor, Lawrence B. Lockwood, most notably Pangea Intellectual Properties, LLC and later Landmark Technology, LLC. These entities have been characterized as non-practicing entities (NPEs), and the litigation strategy has often involved targeting a large number of companies with infringement claims, many of which have resulted in settlements.

The patent, which relates to an automated system for processing financial transactions, has been asserted in over 65 district court cases. These lawsuits have targeted a diverse range of defendants, from small online retailers to large, well-known corporations. The assertions have been broad, with some characterizing the patent as covering the fundamental process of paying with a credit card online.

The patent has also undergone two ex parte reexaminations at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which confirmed the validity of the original claims and allowed for the addition of new claims. Despite these confirmations, the patent has been a target for prior art challenges.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of known litigation involving U.S. Patent 6,289,319, providing a representative sample of the numerous cases filed.

Pangea Intellectual Properties, LLC Litigation (Early 2000s)

In the early 2000s, Lockwood, through PanIP, LLC (also referred to as Pangea IP), began a widespread patent enforcement program. This involved sending letters to numerous e-commerce companies, offering licenses to the '319 patent and a related patent. When these offers were not accepted, lawsuits often followed.

A notable feature of this early campaign was the targeting of smaller companies that were often more inclined to settle rather than face the high costs of patent litigation. Dozens of lawsuits were filed during this period.

Landmark Technology, LLC Litigation (c. 2008 - Present)

Around 2008, the enforcement of the '319 patent was largely taken over by Landmark Technology, LLC, another entity associated with Lockwood. This campaign was even more extensive, with court records indicating a very high volume of lawsuits.

Representative Cases:

• Plaintiff: Landmark Technology, LLC
  Defendant: Learning Resources, Inc.
  Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
  Case Number: Information not publicly available in provided snippets.
  Filing Date: Circa April 11, 2019
  Outcome/Status: The complaint was filed, but further details on the outcome are not available in the provided search results.

• Plaintiff: Landmark Technology, LLC
  Defendant: Launchpad, Inc.
  Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
  Case Number: 3:17-cv-00892
  Filing Date: 2017
  Outcome/Status: The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by Landmark Technology, LLC, indicating a likely settlement.

• Plaintiff: Landmark Technology, LLC
  Defendants: A wide range of companies, including but not limited to:

  • Dunkin' Donuts
  • Abercrombie & Fitch
  • Caesar's Gaming
  • Hitachi
  • Harley-Davidson
  • Louis Vuitton
  • The Children's Place
  • Rubbermaid
    Jurisdiction: Primarily the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue known for patent litigation.
    Case Numbers: Multiple individual cases were filed against each defendant.
    Filing Dates: Primarily in the 2010s.
    Outcome/Status: Many of these cases are believed to have ended in settlements. Given the business model of targeting a large number of companies, the strategy often relied on the economic pressure to settle rather than litigate.

• Declaratory Judgment Action:
  Plaintiff: Tatcha, LLC
  Defendant: Landmark Technology, LLC
  Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court
  Case Number: Not fully available in provided snippets.
  Filing Date: Prior to March 9, 2017
  Outcome/Status: This case appears to be a declaratory judgment action, where Tatcha sought a court ruling on the '319 patent. The snippet suggests a focus on whether a non-exclusive license to Landmark's patent was at issue. Further details are not publicly available.

In summary, U.S. Patent 6,289,319 has been one of the more prolifically litigated patents in the e-commerce space. The litigation history is characterized by a high volume of lawsuits brought by entities controlled by the inventor against a vast number of defendants, with a significant number of these actions resulting in out-of-court settlements.

Based on a review of the USPTO's public data and other available records, here is an analysis of the AIA trial proceedings for US patent 6,289,319.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) on file for US patent 6,289,319. This means the patent has never been challenged at the PTAB, and all its claims remain untested in that forum. For a defendant, this presents a clean slate, with no pre-existing PTAB rulings or estoppel to navigate.

Strategic summary

All claims of US patent 6,289,319 are currently UNTESTED before the PTAB. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM reviews have ever been instituted, the patent has not been narrowed or amended in a PTAB trial, and no claims have been canceled. The originally issued claims (1-6) remain as they were granted.

The estoppel landscape for a potential defendant is completely open. The petitioner estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which bar a petitioner from later raising any ground that it "raised or reasonably could have raised" during the IPR, do not apply. A defendant would be the first to challenge this patent at the PTAB and could use any relevant prior art without restriction from a prior proceeding.

The absence of any PTAB challenges is a significant pattern signal. This patent has an extensive district court litigation history, as indicated by public records. Highly asserted patents, especially in the software and e-commerce space, frequently attract IPRs as a primary defense strategy. The lack of any such filings could suggest that past defendants settled before filing, chose to litigate exclusively in district court, or that much of the litigation pre-dated the 2012 creation of the IPR process.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing an assertion of US patent 6,289,319, the path to a PTAB challenge is clear.

• No PTAB Activity Exists: It must be plainly stated that this patent has no history of AIA trial proceedings. This is a crucial data point, as it means the patent's validity against prior art has not been tested in the specialized, and often more challenging, forum of the PTAB.
• First-Mover Advantage: A defendant would be the first to file an IPR. This provides the opportunity to shape the narrative around the patent's validity without being constrained by previous arguments or claim interpretations made in a prior PTAB trial. All prior art patents and printed publications are available grounds for an invalidity challenge.
• Prior Art Search is Critical: Given the patent's 1994 filing date (with a priority claim to 1984), a thorough prior art search focusing on pre-1994 systems for remote data processing, financial transactions, and interactive terminals would be the immediate next step to evaluate the strength of a potential IPR petition.

Inventors

• Lawrence B. Lockwood: The sole named inventor. The patent's bibliographic data indicates the original assignee was "Individual," suggesting Mr. Lockwood held the patent in his own name upon grant and was not employed by an entity to which he was obligated to assign it.

Original assignee

The original assignee listed on the face of the issued patent is Individual. This means the patent rights were initially held by the inventor, Lawrence B. Lockwood. There is no evidence that a commercial product embodying the claims was ever developed or sold by the inventor acting in his individual capacity.

Assignment timeline

A complete chain of ownership has been recorded with the USPTO.

• 2003-11-20 (executed) / recorded 2003-12-08 — Reel 014801/0088

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Lawrence B. Lockwood
  • Assignee: PanIP, LLC
  • Correspondent: Constantine G. Marantidis, Marantidis & Shore, Encino, CA.
  • Context: The inventor's initial transfer to a newly formed holding company, which preceded the first major litigation campaign.

• 2008-01-28 (executed) / recorded 2008-05-12 — Reel 021239/0712

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: PanIP, LLC
  • Assignee: Pangea Intellectual Properties, LLC
  • Correspondent: Constantine G. Marantidis, Marantidis & Shore, Encino, CA. This is the same correspondent as the previous and all subsequent recordings.
  • Context: An internal transfer between two entities associated with the inventor, formalizing the name of the assertion entity.

• 2008-07-28 (executed) / recorded 2009-03-31 — Reel 022839/0172

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Pangea Intellectual Properties, LLC
  • Assignee: Landmark Technology, LLC
  • Correspondent: Constantine G. Marantidis, Marantidis & Shore, LLP, Encino, CA.
  • Context: Transfer to a new primary assertion entity, Landmark Technology, which initiated an even larger wave of litigation.

• 2017-06-30 (executed) / recorded 2017-07-06 — Reel 046313/0545

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Landmark Technology, LLC
  • Assignee: Landmark Technology A, LLC
  • Correspondent: Constantine G. Marantidis, Marantidis & Shore LLP, Encino, CA.
  • Context: The first in a series of cascading transfers to sequentially-named holding companies.

• 2019-12-31 (executed) / recorded 2020-03-05 — Reel 052402/0833

  • Conveyance: Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment
  • Assignor: Landmark Technology A, LLC
  • Assignee: Landmark Technology B, LLC
  • Correspondent: Constantine G. Marantidis, Marantidis & Shore LLP, Encino, CA.
  • Context: Continuation of the internal cascading transfers for portfolio management.

• 2020-07-01 (executed) / recorded 2020-08-04 — Reel 054124/0746

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Patents
  • Assignor: Landmark Technology B, LLC
  • Assignee: Landmark Technology C, LLC
  • Correspondent: Constantine G. Marantidis, Marantidis & Shore, LLP, Encino, CA.
  • Context: Continuation of the internal cascading transfers for portfolio management.

• 2021-08-31 (executed) / recorded 2021-09-02 — Reel 058349/0906

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Patents
  • Assignor: Landmark Technology C, LLC
  • Assignee: Landmark Technology D, LLC
  • Correspondent: Constantine G. Marantidis, Marantidis & Shore, LLP, Encino, CA.
  • Context: The most recent recorded transfer, continuing the pattern of moving the patent between related shell entities.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6289319
    2001 : Issued to inventor L. Lockwood
    2003 : Assigned to PanIP LLC
    2008 : Assigned to Pangea IP LLC
         : Assigned to Landmark Technology LLC
    2017 : Assigned to Landmark Technology A LLC
    2019 : Assigned to Landmark Technology B LLC
    2020 : Assigned to Landmark Technology C LLC
    2021 : Assigned to Landmark Technology D LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer: Present. The patent was moved from the individual inventor to a series of Nevada limited liability companies with names indicative of patent-holding purposes (PanIP, LLC; Pangea Intellectual Properties, LLC; Landmark Technology, LLC; etc.). These transfers, beginning with the assignment recorded at Reel 014801/0088, move the patent away from its creator and into vehicles designed for assertion.

2. Known asserter in the chain: Present. As documented in the litigation summary and by public sources like RPX and Unified Patents, Pangea Intellectual Properties, LLC and Landmark Technology, LLC are well-known, high-volume patent assertion entities. Their appearance in the chain (Reels 021239/0712 and 022839/0172, respectively) is a definitive signal.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: Present. Attorney Constantine G. Marantidis of Marantidis & Shore LLP is the correspondent of record for every single assignment in the chain of title, from the first transfer in 2003 (Reel 014801/0088) to the most recent in 2021 (Reel 058349/0906). This consistency of legal representation across two decades and multiple sequentially-named LLCs is an exceptionally strong indicator of a centrally-managed licensing and assertion campaign.

4. Cascading transfers: Present. The series of assignments from Landmark Technology, LLC → Landmark Technology A, LLC → B, LLC → C, LLC → D, LLC (Reels 046313/0545 through 058349/0906) is a clear pattern of cascading transfers. This strategy is often used by assertion entities for accounting, legal, or strategic purposes while keeping the portfolio under common control.

5. Pre-litigation transfer: Present. The November 2003 transfer to PanIP, LLC (Reel 014801/0088) preceded the extensive litigation campaign by Pangea IP in the 2000s. The July 2008 transfer to Landmark Technology, LLC (Reel 022839/0172) directly preceded the start of Landmark's even more prolific assertion campaign around 2008.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: Not present. The assignment chain originates with the inventor, not a bankrupt operating company.

7. Privateering: Not present. The patent was not transferred from an operating company to be asserted on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): Not present. The chain of title does not include any known defensive aggregators. The patent remains controlled by an assertion-focused entity.

Verdict

• NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on the presence of at least five strong, unambiguous signals in the USPTO assignment record. The patent was transferred from the inventor into a series of shell LLCs (Reel 014801/0088), including known high-volume asserters Pangea IP and Landmark Technology (Reel 022839/0172). The entire chain of assignments over 18 years was handled by a single, recurring correspondent, and the patent was cascaded through multiple sequentially-named LLCs (Reels 046313/0545 onward), all classic hallmarks of a sophisticated and long-running patent assertion campaign.

The full assignment history can be verified at the USPTO Patent Assignment Search page for US Patent 6,289,319.

Based on my analysis of the patent's file wrapper and cited references, here is the most relevant prior art for US patent 6,289,319. The analysis focuses on which claims are potentially anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Cited Prior Art Analysis

The following references were cited by the USPTO examiner during the prosecution of US patent 6,289,319.

---

1. US Patent 4,359,631 A (Lockwood)

• Full Citation: US Patent 4,359,631 A, "Self-service terminal," invented by Lawrence B. Lockwood (the same inventor as the '319 patent).
• Publication Date: November 16, 1982
• Brief Description: This patent describes a self-service terminal designed to be more user-friendly by using a video display that presents a pre-recorded image of a person to guide the user through a transaction. It details the use of a videodisc player to store and play back audio-visual sequences, a keyboard for user input, and a processor to control the terminal's operations. The primary focus is on the terminal's human interface.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is highly relevant to the terminal-specific elements described in the '319 patent.
  • Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6: The '631 patent arguably discloses many components of the terminal described in Claim 1, including the data processor, video screen (Claim 1), means for holding operational data (a videodisc, as covered by Claim 6), means for manual entry, and means for outputting informing and inquiring sequences using a video persona with synchronized audible messages (Claims 3, 4, 5). However, the '631 patent focuses almost exclusively on the standalone terminal. It does not appear to describe the complete system architecture of Claim 1, specifically the remote linking of the terminal to a separate central processor that is programmed to receive and process orders, store the information, and transmit data back to the terminal to complete the transaction loop. Therefore, while it anticipates many of the terminal features, it likely does not anticipate the entire system claimed in Claim 1.

---

2. Washington Post Article: "Computer firm to help buyer, shop for loan"

• Full Citation: Young, G., "Computer firm to help buyer, shop for loan," Washington Post, Real Estate Section, April 9, 1984.
• Publication Date: April 9, 1984
• Brief Description: This newspaper article, published before the patent's 1984 priority date, describes a computerized loan-shopping service. These systems allowed potential borrowers to use a terminal to enter their financial information. The system would then process this information and search for available mortgage loans from various lenders, presenting the user with potential options.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This printed publication is arguably the most relevant prior art for the broadest claims of the '319 patent.
  • Claim 1: The service described in the article appears to embody the core elements of Claim 1. It involves a terminal at a remote site (at least one terminal at each of said remote sites), a user manually entering information (means for manually entering information), a connection to a central computer that processes the inquiry (a central processor programmed and connected to process a variety of inquiries), and the transmission of data back and forth. The process of guiding a user to enter financial data constitutes "informing and inquiring sequences." The system's function of finding loans and processing the user's data represents the processing of "business and financial transactions." If the article provides sufficient detail on the system's architecture (i.e., a central processor storing and receiving data from multiple remote terminals), it could be argued to anticipate the entirety of Claim 1.
  • Claim 2: To the extent that the system described by Young determines loan eligibility or options based on the user's entered data, it could anticipate Claim 2, which claims a "means for generating a personal qualification report."

---

3. US Patent 4,333,152 A (Best)

• Full Citation: US Patent 4,333,152 A, "TV Movies that talk back," invented by Best Robert M.
• Publication Date: June 1, 1982
• Brief Description: This patent details an interactive video system where a user at a remote terminal can make choices that affect the narrative of a video program stored on a central computer. The system facilitates a branching video sequence based on user input, transmitted over communication lines like telephone or cable.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1: The Best patent discloses a system with a central processor, remote terminals with video screens and manual input, and a remote communication link. It also describes the use of "informing and inquiring sequences" to guide a user's experience. However, the system's purpose is entertainment and education, not conducting "business and financial transactions" or processing "orders" that would update stored data on the central processor in a commercial context. Therefore, it likely fails to anticipate the business and financial transaction elements central to Claim 1.

---

4. US Patent 5,146,404 A (Westinghouse)

• Full Citation: US Patent 5,146,404 A, "Electronic maintenance support work station," assigned to Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
• Publication Date: September 8, 1992
• Brief Description: This patent describes an expert system designed to assist technicians with maintenance tasks. A workstation provides interactive, step-by-step graphical and textual instructions to guide the technician. The workstation can also connect to a central database to download technical manuals and other relevant data.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1: This system includes an interactive terminal connected to a central data source, and it uses "informing and inquiring sequences" to guide a user through a process. However, similar to the Best '152 patent, its application is for technical maintenance, not for processing "business and financial transactions" or "orders" in a commercial sense. The interaction is focused on executing a pre-defined technical procedure rather than conducting a dynamic financial transaction. For this reason, it would likely not anticipate the core subject matter of Claim 1.

Here is a technical analysis of the obviousness of US Patent 6,289,319 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on the prior art cited in the patent's own file history.

Standard for Obviousness

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is invalid as "obvious" if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (a "POSITA"). An obviousness analysis requires considering the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. A key component is providing a reasoned explanation for why a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention.

Prior Art References

The analysis below is based on the prior art cited by the patent examiner during the prosecution of US Patent 6,289,319:

• US4,359,631 to Lockwood ("Lockwood '631"): Discloses a self-service terminal with a video display, user input means, and a connection to a central computer for conducting transactions. This reference establishes the basic architecture of an automated terminal system.
• "Computer firm to help buyer, shop for loan" by G. Young, Washington Post, Apr. 9, 1984 ("Young"): Describes a computer service that allows prospective home buyers to enter their financial information, which the system then uses to search for and identify suitable loan products from various lenders. This article provides the specific business application of automating the loan shopping and qualification process.
• US4,333,152 to Best ("Best '152"): Teaches an interactive video system, described as "TV Movies that talk back," where the video content can branch and change in response to user input. This provides a method for creating an interactive, guided experience using video.
• US4,553,206 to Wang ("Wang '206"): Describes a system for the storage and retrieval of images from a mass storage device, specifically mentioning optical discs. This teaches a technical means for storing the large amounts of data required for video and graphical displays.

Obviousness Analysis of Claims

Ground 1: Claims 1 and 2 are rendered obvious by the combination of Lockwood '631 and Young.

Claim 1 recites a system comprising remote terminals linked to a central processor for processing business and financial transactions. The terminal includes a video screen and means for manual data entry, allowing a user to interact with the system by responding to "informing and inquiring sequences."

• Lockwood '631 discloses the core technical framework of this claim: a self-service terminal with a video screen, user input, and a remote link to a central processor to conduct transactions. This provides the foundational "automatic data processing system" with its terminals and central processor.

• Young discloses the specific business application missing from Lockwood '631. Young teaches using a computer system to process financial data for the specific purpose of a loan transaction. It describes a system that takes a user's information (an "inquiry") and processes it to provide loan options.

Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art in 1984, aware of the self-service terminal technology taught by Lockwood '631, would have been motivated to apply it to the loan shopping application described by Young. The Young article identifies a clear market need: simplifying the complex and labor-intensive process of applying for a loan. Applying the known technology of a self-service terminal to automate this financial process would have been an obvious way to improve efficiency, reduce paperwork, and make financial services more accessible to consumers, akin to how ATMs were already automating basic banking transactions.

Claim 2 adds the limitation of generating a "personal qualification report" by "mathematically processing" the user's entered information.

• This is the core teaching of Young, which explicitly describes a computer system that takes a buyer's financial data to determine loan eligibility. The "mathematical processing" is inherent to any computer performing such a financial analysis. Therefore, adding the functionality described in Young to the terminal system of Lockwood '631 would directly result in the system claimed in Claim 2.

Ground 2: Claims 3-6 are rendered obvious by the combination of Lockwood '631 and Young, further in view of Best '152 and Wang '206.

This combination builds upon the base system from Ground 1 to add the more specific multimedia and user interface features recited in the dependent claims.

Claim 3 requires the "informing and inquiring sequences" to include "textual and graphical data." Computer terminals of the era, including the one described in Lockwood '631, routinely used text and graphics on a video screen to present information to a user. This was a standard and obvious design choice for any interactive terminal.

Claim 4 adds "audible informing and inquiring messages." By 1984, voice synthesis was a known technology. A POSITA seeking to make the automated loan application process of Young more user-friendly would have found it obvious to add audible prompts. This would enhance the user experience by, for example, reading questions aloud or audibly confirming data entered by the user, thereby improving accuracy and accessibility.

Claim 5 requires "synchronizing said audible messages with said textual and graphical data." If audible messages (Claim 4) are added to a video display (Claim 3) to create a guided experience, synchronizing them is not an inventive step but a necessary and obvious implementation detail to ensure the user interface is coherent and not confusing. Best '152, in teaching an interactive "talking" movie, inherently teaches the synchronization of video and audio tracks to present a unified narrative to the user.

Claim 6 specifies that the "means for holding" the operational data is an "optical disc." The '319 patent describes using this storage for a "fictitious loan officer" presented via video.

• Best '152 teaches the use of interactive video to guide a user. A POSITA, motivated to make the loan application process less intimidating, would find it obvious to apply Best's interactive video technique to simulate a human loan officer.
• To implement such a video-intensive interface, a large-capacity storage medium is required. Wang '206 teaches that an optical disc is a suitable technology for storing and retrieving the large image and video files needed for such a system. Therefore, selecting an optical disc as the storage medium for the interactive video content would have been an obvious design choice for a POSITA building the system.

Conclusion

The independent claims of US Patent 6,289,319 describe a general-purpose remote transaction system applied to the specific field of financial applications like loans. The prior art establishes that the general system architecture (Lockwood '631) and the specific business application (Young) were both known before the invention's priority date. Combining these known elements would have been obvious to a POSITA seeking to improve efficiency in the financial services industry. The dependent claims add further known, conventional elements, such as common user interface features (Best '152) and standard hardware components (Wang '206), that would have been obvious additions to enhance the functionality and usability of the base system.

Term, Adjustments, and Family Details for US Patent 6,289,319

Analysis Date: 2026-05-11

Based on a thorough review of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) records for US patent 6,289,319, here is a detailed analysis of its term, related applications, and expiration date.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Extensions (PTE)

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): There is no Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) indicated on the face of the issued patent or in its prosecution history. The patent was filed on November 30, 1994, which predates the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 that established the modern PTA system. Therefore, USPTO processing delays did not result in any term extension for this patent.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There is no evidence of any Patent Term Extension (PTE) under 35 U.S.C. § 156. Such extensions are typically granted for delays in regulatory review for products like pharmaceuticals and are not applicable to this patent's subject matter.

Continuity and Related Applications

The application for patent 6,289,319 (Ser. No. 08/347,270) is part of a long chain of continuation applications, claiming priority back to an application filed in 1984. The legal status and term of this patent are determined by the filing date of the specific application that issued as the patent, but its lineage is important for understanding its history.

• Continuation Of: The application (Ser. No. 08/347,270) is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/096,610, filed on July 23, 1993 (now abandoned).

• Chain of Priority: The full chain of priority as listed in the patent is as follows:

  • Ser. No. 08/096,610 (filed Jul. 23, 1993, abandoned)
  • Ser. No. 07/752,026 (filed Aug. 29, 1991, abandoned)
  • Ser. No. 07/168,856 (filed Mar. 16, 1988, abandoned)
  • Ser. No. 06/822,115 (filed Jan. 24, 1986, abandoned)
  • Ser. No. 06/613,525 (filed May 24, 1984), which issued as US Patent 4,567,359.

• Divisional Applications: There are no divisional applications that stem from the application that matured into the '319 patent.

Patent Family Members

Beyond the direct continuation chain, there is at least one other significant US patent family member related through a continuation-in-part application.

• US Patent 7,010,508: Titled "Automated multimedia data processing network," this patent issued from application Ser. No. 08/418,772, which was filed on April 7, 1995. This application is a continuation of the same parent application as the '319 patent and also claims the ultimate priority date of May 24, 1984.

Projected Expiration Date

The expiration date of US patent 6,289,319 is determined by the law that was in effect when it was filed.

• Applicable Law: The patent was filed on November 30, 1994. This is before the June 8, 1995 date established by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). For patents filed before this date, the term is the later of 17 years from the issue date OR 20 years from the filing date.
• Issue Date Calculation: The patent was issued on September 11, 2001.
  • 17 years from issue date: September 11, 2001 + 17 years = September 11, 2018.
• Filing Date Calculation: The application was filed on November 30, 1994.
  • 20 years from filing date: November 30, 1994 + 20 years = November 30, 2014.

Comparing the two dates, the later date is September 11, 2018.

Projected Expiration Date: The projected expiration date for US Patent 6,289,319 was September 11, 2018. As of today's date, May 11, 2026, the patent is expired and has been for several years.

Defensive Disclosure Document for U.S. Patent 6,289,319

Publication Date: May 11, 2026
Subject: Derivative Works and Obvious Variations of an Automatic Business and Financial Transaction Processing System.
Purpose: This document enters into the public domain a series of technical disclosures that build upon, substitute, expand, and combine the system described in U.S. Patent 6,289,319. The intent is to establish prior art that renders subsequent, incremental improvements obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), thereby dedicating these improvements to the public.

---

Derivative Variations Based on Independent Claim 1

The following disclosures describe technical variations of the system claimed in U.S. Patent 6,289,319. Each disclosure constitutes a standalone embodiment.

Axis 1: Material & Component Substitution

1.1. Terminal with Haptic Feedback and Integrated Biometric Input

• Enabling Description: The terminal's "means for manually entering information" is substituted with an integrated biometric and haptic I/O surface. This surface is composed of a multi-layer stack: a top chemically-strengthened glass layer, a microfluidic haptic layer capable of dynamically altering surface texture by pumping non-Newtonian fluid, an array of piezoelectric transducers for localized vibratory feedback, and a high-resolution capacitive sensor grid. Integrated beneath this stack is a near-infrared (NIR) LED array (850nm) and a CMOS sensor for capturing subdermal vein patterns for user authentication, replacing manual password entry. The terminal's data processor is coupled to a dedicated biometric processing unit (BPU) that executes a Siamese neural network for one-shot vein pattern matching against an encrypted template retrieved from the central processor. The haptic feedback is controlled by the terminal's processor to form dynamic, temporary ridges to guide a user's hand towards input fields or to confirm selections with specific tactile patterns (e.g., a double-pulse vibration), measurably reducing input errors in high-stakes transactions.

• Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      A[User Approaches Terminal] --> B{Biometric Authentication};
      B --> C{NIR Scan of Subdermal Vein Pattern};
      C --> D[Terminal BPU Executes Siamese Network];
      D --> E{Match Template from Central Processor?};
      E -- Yes --> F[Session Authenticated];
      E -- No --> A;
      F --> G[Terminal Processor Renders UI on Screen];
      G --> H[Microfluidic Layer Forms Haptic Guides for Input Fields];
      H --> I[User Provides Input on Capacitive Surface];
      I --> J[Piezoelectric Array Confirms Input with Localized Vibration];
      J --> K[Transaction Data Transmitted to Central Processor];
  

1.2. Central Processor Utilizing Quantum Annealing for Risk Assessment

• Enabling Description: The "central processor" is a hybrid computing system where routine transaction processing and data storage are handled by classical CPUs, while complex, multi-variable risk assessments are offloaded to a Quantum Annealing Unit (QAU). When a financial transaction requiring risk scoring is received from a terminal, the applicant's data vector is combined with external real-time macroeconomic data streams. This combined feature set is dynamically mapped by a classical pre-processing server to a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) problem. The QUBO matrix is then passed to the QAU. The QAU solves this problem by finding the lowest energy state of its qubit system, which corresponds to the optimal risk profile, credit limit, or insurance premium. The result is returned to the classical CPU, which communicates the final decision to the remote terminal. This architecture allows for the real-time processing of financial models with thousands of variables, a task computationally intractable for classical systems alone.

• Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Terminal
      participant Central_CPU
      participant QAU_Interface
      participant QAU
      Terminal->>Central_CPU: Submit Loan Application Data
      Central_CPU->>QAU_Interface: Formulate QUBO Problem from User & Market Data
      QAU_Interface->>QAU: Offload QUBO for Annealing
      QAU-->>QAU_Interface: Return Low-Energy Solution (Optimal Risk Profile)
      QAU_Interface-->>Central_CPU: Translate Solution into Business Terms (e.g., Loan Amount)
      Central_CPU-->>Terminal: Transmit Final Loan Decision
  

Axis 2: Operational Parameter Expansion

2.1. Micro-transaction System for Nanoscale Manufacturing

• Enabling Description: The system is scaled down to manage atomic-level fabrication processes. The "remote terminal" is the control interface for an Atomic Force Microscope (AFM). The "user" is a fabrication process control algorithm. The "central processor" is a manufacturing execution system (MES). The "transaction" is a request to place a single molecule at a designated coordinate on a silicon substrate. The terminal's video screen displays a real-time visualization of the atomic surface. The "informing and inquiring sequences" are interactive prompts for the control algorithm to select a target molecule, specify deposition parameters (e.g., voltage pulse amplitude and duration for an STM tip), and confirm the successful completion of the fabrication step via sensor feedback. The central processor logs each atomic manipulation as a discrete micro-transaction, updating a bill of materials and a process history log in its database. This system processes millions of such transactions per second to construct a quantum dot device.

• Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      subgraph MES Central Processor
          B[Process Log Database]
          C[Bill of Materials DB]
      end
      subgraph AFM Terminal
          D[AFM Control Interface]
          E[Real-time Atomic Visualization]
          F[Deposition Parameter Input]
      end
      A[Fab Algorithm] --> D;
      D --> E;
      A --> F;
      F -- Execute Transaction --> G(STM Tip performs atomic placement);
      G -- Feedback --> H{Placement Successful?};
      H -- Yes --> I[Log Micro-transaction];
      I --> B;
      I --> C;
      H -- No --> F;
  

2.2. System for High-Pressure Deep-Sea Resource Contract Adjudication

• Enabling Description: The system is environmentally hardened for operation on abyssal plains at pressures exceeding 600 bar and ambient temperatures near 0°C. The "remote terminal" is housed in a 5cm-thick titanium-alloy pressure vessel with sapphire-glass viewports for the video screen. User input is achieved via external, magnetically-coupled manipulators to prevent hull penetration. All internal electronics are potted in a non-compressible, high-dielectric silicone fluid. The "means for remotely linking" is a hybrid system utilizing an acoustic modem (8-16 kHz frequency band) for low-bandwidth command/control and a dedicated fiber-optic tether for high-bandwidth video and data transfer when connected to a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV). The system processes transactions for in-situ resource contracts, such as reserving mining rights to a polymetallic nodule field. The terminal guides an ROV operator through a sequence of geological surveys, sample analysis data entry, and claim registration with a central processor located on a surface vessel.

• Diagram:

  graph TD
      subgraph Surface Vessel
          A[Central Processor]
      end
      subgraph Deep-Sea ROV
          B[Hardened Terminal in Pressure Vessel]
          C[Video Screen]
          D[Magnetically-Coupled Input]
          E[Geological Sensors]
      end
      A <-->|Fiber-Optic Tether & Acoustic Modem| B;
      B -- Controls --> C;
      D -- User Input --> B;
      E -- Sensor Data --> B;
      B -- Transaction Request --> A;
  

Axis 3: Cross-Domain Application

3.1. Aerospace: Automated Pre-Flight Checklist and Systems Verification Terminal

• Enabling Description: The system is implemented as a smart maintenance and pre-flight terminal on an aircraft flight deck. The "central processor" is the aircraft's primary avionics computer. The "entity" is a pilot or maintenance technician. The terminal guides the user through mandatory, dynamically-generated pre-flight checklists. The "inquiring sequences" are generated based on the aircraft's real-time sensor data from the ARINC 429 bus, its flight history from the Flight Data Recorder, and known maintenance bulletins pushed from a ground server. For example, if a sensor indicates anomalous engine vibration on a previous flight, the terminal automatically fetches and displays a specific diagnostic and inspection routine. The pilot enters confirmation of each check via the terminal. A completed checklist transaction is an "order" for the central processor to clear the aircraft for flight, which updates its status in the maintenance log and enables the engine start sequence.

• Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Checklist_Not_Started
      Checklist_Not_Started --> In_Progress: Begin Checklist
      In_Progress --> In_Progress: Complete Standard Item
      In_Progress --> Dynamic_Subroutine: Sensor Anomaly Detected
      Dynamic_Subroutine --> Dynamic_Subroutine: Complete Diagnostic Step
      Dynamic_Subroutine --> In_Progress: Subroutine Complete
      In_Progress --> Cleared_For_Flight: All Items Complete
      Cleared_For_Flight --> [*]: Engine Start
  

3.2. AgTech: In-Field Crop Diagnostics and Automated Futures Contracting Terminal

• Enabling Description: A ruggedized, portable IP68-rated version of the terminal is used in-field by farmers, integrating a multispectral camera (capturing Blue, Green, Red, Red Edge, and Near-Infrared bands) and a soil probe interface. The "transaction" is a multi-step process involving crop health diagnosis and automated commodity trading. The terminal guides the farmer to capture multispectral images of a crop section. This data is transmitted via a satellite link to the "central processor," which runs a convolutional neural network (CNN) to diagnose diseases or nutrient deficiencies, calculating a Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). Based on the diagnosis and projected yield impact, the farmer is presented with an "informing sequence" on futures contract options. The farmer can then place an order to sell a certain quantity of their projected harvest on a commodity exchange via an API integrated with the central processor.

• Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Farmer
      participant Field_Terminal
      participant Central_Processor
      participant Commodity_Exchange
      Farmer->>Field_Terminal: Capture Multispectral Image of Crop
      Field_Terminal->>Central_Processor: Transmit Image Data
      Central_Processor->>Central_Processor: Run CNN for Diagnosis (e.g., blight detected)
      Central_Processor-->>Field_Terminal: Return Diagnosis & Projected Yield Impact
      Field_Terminal-->>Farmer: Display Diagnosis and Futures Options
      Farmer->>Field_Terminal: Selects Contract and Places Sell Order
      Field_Terminal->>Central_Processor: Transmit Order
      Central_Processor->>Commodity_Exchange: Execute Sell Order via API
  

3.3. Consumer Electronics: Guided Triage and Repair Terminal for Complex Devices

• Enabling Description: The system is deployed as a public kiosk for diagnosing and initiating repairs for consumer electronics. The "terminal" includes physical ports (USB-C with Power Delivery and DisplayPort Alt Mode, Lightning) and wireless transceivers (NFC, Wi-Fi 6E, Bluetooth 5.3) to interface with a user's device. The "informing and inquiring sequences" guide the user to connect their device. The terminal initiates a diagnostic routine over the connected interface, querying the device's Unified Diagnostic Services (UDS). This data is sent to a "central processor" run by the manufacturer. The central processor analyzes the data, determines the likely fault (e.g., failed battery, corrupted secure enclave), and calculates a repair cost. This is sent back to the terminal. The user can then authorize the repair, which constitutes an "order." The central processor creates a work order and instructs the terminal to print a shipping label with an RMA number.

• Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      A[User Connects Device to Kiosk] --> B[Terminal Runs UDS Diagnostics];
      B --> C[Transmit Diagnostic Data to Central Processor];
      C --> D[Central Processor Analyzes Fault & Calculates Cost];
      D --> E[Transmit Quote to Terminal];
      E --> F{User Approves Repair?};
      F -- Yes --> G[Processor Generates RMA];
      G --> H[Terminal Prints Shipping Label];
      F -- No --> I[End Session];
  

Axis 4: Integration with Emerging Tech

4.1. AI-Powered Dynamic Transaction Flow Generation with IoT Data Integration

• Enabling Description: The system's transaction flow is not pre-programmed but is dynamically generated by a large language model (LLM) on the central processor. The "remote terminal" is augmented with a suite of IoT sensors (e.g., ambient light sensor, MEMS microphone array, RGB-D camera). The central AI model ingests real-time data from these sensors to infer the user's context, emotional state (via facial expression and voice stress analysis), and potential intent. It then generates the next "informing and inquiring sequence" on-the-fly, tailoring the language, graphical layout, and even the video persona's vocal timbre to optimize the user experience. For instance, if the microphone array detects a noisy environment, the AI will increase on-screen font size and use more iconography. If sentiment analysis detects user frustration, the AI can rephrase the inquiry, offer a simplified path, or proactively instantiate a connection to a human agent.

• Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant User
      participant Terminal_with_IoT
      participant Central_AI_Processor
  
      loop Transaction Flow
          Terminal_with_IoT->>Central_AI_Processor: Stream Sensor Data (Video, Audio, Ambient)
          Central_AI_Processor->>Central_AI_Processor: Analyze User State (e.g., Frustration Detected)
          Central_AI_Processor->>Central_AI_Processor: Generate Next UI/Inquiry Step based on State
          Central_AI_Processor-->>Terminal_with_IoT: Transmit Dynamically Generated UI
          Terminal_with_IoT-->>User: Display Simplified Inquiry
          User->>Terminal_with_IoT: Provide Input
      end
  

4.2. Blockchain-Based Transaction Ledger and Smart Contract Execution

• Enabling Description: Every completed transaction results in a permanent, immutable record on a distributed ledger. The "central processor" also functions as a node on a permissioned blockchain (e.g., Hyperledger Fabric). When a user completes an order at a terminal, the central processor formats the key transaction data (e.g., cryptographic identifiers of parties, amount, timestamp) into a data block. This block is cryptographically hashed and submitted to the blockchain network for consensus and validation. The "means for retrievably storing said information" is thus extended to include the blockchain. A smart contract, deployed on the same blockchain, can be automatically executed upon the confirmation of the transaction. For example, in a loan application, the smart contract could automatically trigger the transfer of a stablecoin from the lender's wallet to the applicant's wallet once the loan is approved and the transaction is committed to a block.

• Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      A[Terminal Captures Transaction] --> B[Central Processor Receives Data];
      B --> C[Processor Formats Data for Blockchain];
      C --> D{Submit Transaction to Blockchain Network};
      D --> E[Network Achieves Consensus];
      E --> F[Transaction Added to New Block];
      F --> G[Smart Contract Triggered by New Block];
      G --> H[Automatic Execution (e.g., Fund Transfer)];
  

Axis 5: The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

5.1. Graceful Degradation Terminal for Emergency Financial Services

• Enabling Description: This variation is designed for high-availability in unreliable network conditions. The terminal operates in three distinct modes based on network connectivity quality, monitored via round-trip time and packet loss measurements.

  1. Mode 1 (Full Online): Functions as described in the patent.
  2. Mode 2 (Intermittent/Low-Bandwidth): When connectivity degrades (packet loss > 5%), the terminal controller switches to a "store-and-forward" mode. It uses pre-cached, compressed vector-graphic informing sequences instead of full video. Transactions are completed locally, cryptographically signed with a terminal-specific TPM-stored private key, and queued in a local non-volatile memory store. The terminal transmits the queued transaction batch when connectivity improves.
  3. Mode 3 (Full Offline): If the link is lost for >60 seconds, the terminal enters a "limited functionality" mode. It can only perform transactions pre-authorized within velocity limits downloaded from the central processor during its last online session (e.g., dispense up to $100 total cash). All transactions are logged locally and must be reconciled once connectivity is restored.

• Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Online: Good Connectivity
      Online --> Intermittent: Packet Loss > 5%
      Intermittent --> Online: Packet Loss < 1%
      Intermittent --> Offline: Connection Lost > 60s
      Offline --> Intermittent: Connection Restored
      Online --> Offline: Connection Lost > 60s
  
      state Online {
          description Full Functionality, Live Video
      }
      state Intermittent {
          description Store-and-Forward, Cached Vector UI
      }
      state Offline {
          description Pre-Authorized Limits, Local Logging
      }
  

---

Combination Prior Art with Open-Source Standards

1. Combination with OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect

• Description: The system described in US 6,289,319 is combined with the IETF's OAuth 2.0 (RFC 6749) and the OpenID Connect 1.0 standards for authentication and authorization. Instead of a proprietary identification method, the terminal initiates an "Authorization Code Flow." The terminal's video screen displays a QR code. The user scans the QR code with their mobile device, which directs them to a third-party Identity Provider (e.g., their bank's login portal, Google, etc.). After the user authenticates on their own device, the Identity Provider redirects back to a service run by the central processor, providing an authorization code. The central processor exchanges this code for an ID Token and an Access Token. The ID Token securely provides the user's identity information to the terminal session, while the Access Token is used to authorize the terminal to access the user's financial data from a resource server (e.g., a credit reporting service) via a secure API.

2. Combination with ISO 20022 Financial Messaging Standard

• Description: The data communication between the remote terminal and the central processor, and between the central processor and external financial institutions, is implemented using the ISO 20022 standard. When a user submits a transaction (e.g., a loan application or a payment order), the terminal's data processor assembles the information into a well-formed XML message conforming to the relevant ISO 20022 schema (e.g., pain.001 for a credit transfer initiation). This message is transmitted to the central processor, which validates it against the schema. The central processor then communicates with other financial networks by generating and consuming other ISO 20022 messages (e.g., pacs.008 for a FI to FI payment). This standardizes the data format, ensuring interoperability with modern global financial networks.

3. Combination with WebRTC for Live Agent Escalation

• Description: The interactive system of the patent is combined with the W3C's Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) standard. While the primary user interaction is with the "fictitious loan officer" (a pre-recorded video), the terminal's software includes a feature to escalate to a live human agent. If the user indicates they need help, the terminal's processor establishes a peer-to-peer, encrypted media and data channel directly between the terminal and a human agent's web browser using the WebRTC API. This allows for a real-time, secure video and audio conversation to be displayed on the terminal's video screen, replacing the pre-recorded content. The human agent can provide assistance, and data entered by the user at the terminal can be transmitted to the agent over the WebRTC data channel for co-browsing and support.