DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 14, 21, 26, 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nireki (US 2009/0121415 A1) in view of Hayashi (US 5,312,108), further in view of Voellmer et al (US 6,439,395 B1), further in view of Jones et al (US 2017/0313533 A1) and further in view of Fujioka (US 6,971,573 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Nireki teaches a document accepting system, i.e, bill processing apparatus/paper sheet processing apparatus (1), as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at paragraphs 27 and 29, for example, comprising:
an opening to accept a document, i.e.., bill insertion slot (5) as illustrated in figure 5 and as mentioned at paragraph 29, last sentence; and
a transportation path, i.e., bill traveling route (3), as illustrated in figures 2-4 and as mentioned at paragraphs 29, 30 and 46, to transport the document into, inside, and out of an interior of the document accepting system (1), noting that transport path (3) performs the function of moving all banknotes into, inside and out of the interior of the document accepting system (1),
wherein the transportation path (3) includes:
an active side, i.e., conveyor rollers (15b, 16b, 17b) located on the underside of the transportation path/traveling route (3), powered by motor (13) as illustrated at figures 4 and 5 and as mentioned at paragraphs 40 and 41, including a plurality of driving rollers, i.e., conveyor rollers (15b, 16b, 17b) operable to impart a driving force on the document/bill/banknote, and
a passive side, i.e., pinch rollers (15a, 16a, 17a), driven in part by virtue of contact with powered conveyor rollers (15b, 16b, 17b), as illustrated in figures 4 and 5 and as mentioned at paragraphs 40 and 41, including a plurality of raised surfaces disposed on a surface of the transportation path (3), noting that figure 2 illustrates a raised flat bill traveling surface, near skew correction mechanism (10) and noting that active driven conveyor rollers (15b, 16b) exposed through apertures in said raised surface, mate with passive pinch rollers (15a, 16a) exposed through apertures in the raised opposing surface of open/close member (2b),
wherein, during the transport of the document through a plurality of portions of the document accepting system, noting the rollers (14a, b, 15a, b, 16a, b, 17a, b) and the rollers near the acceptance port (103) as illustrated in figures 3 and 4, the document/bill is pressed between the one or more driving rollers or belts (15a, 15b. 16a, 16b, 17a, 17b) and the at least one raised surface, as illustrated in figures 2-4 and 11, noting that the .
Note also paragraph 89, which mentions powered and unpowered rollers (14A and 14B) as follows.
[0089] The embodiment of the present invention has been described above. However, the present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiment, and various modifications can be implemented. In the above-described embodiment, the pair of contact members installed in the vicinity of the bill insertion slot 5 to hold the bill therebetween has been described as the roller pair (14A and 14B). However, the pair of contact members may be appropriately modified such that one of the contact members may be a roller member and the other may be a belt member as well as both may be belt members. Further, in the above-described embodiment, the lower roller 14B is configured to be driven to rotate. However, the upper roller 14A may be configured to be driven to rotate.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 1, Nireki does not expressly teach a passive side including a plurality of raised surfaces disposed on a surface of the transportation path, each of the plurality of raised surfaces including a stationary rail extending a distance above the surface of the transportation path,
wherein;
each of the plurality of driving rollers is disposed adjacent to and between two of the stationary rails, and
during the transport of the document through a plurality of portions of the document accepting system, the document is pressed at intervals between one of the plurality of driving rollers and two of the stationary rails, creating a plurality of pinch points along the transportation path where the document deforms and an outer edge of the document bends away from the passive side of the transportation path.
Regarding Claim 1, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Hayashi teaches a passive side including a plurality of raised surfaces, i.e., ribs (34, 38, 84, 88, 88a, 88b, 132), as illustrated in figures 1-6, disposed on a surface of the transportation path, i.e., rib panel (31, 81, 131), as illustrated in figures 1-6, each of the plurality of raised surfaces (34, 38, 84, 88, 88a, 88b, 132) including a stationary rail, i.e, each of the ribs (34, 38, 84, 88, 88a, 88b, 132) which are in the form of a rail which does not move, extending a distance above the surface of the transportation path (31, 81, 131),
wherein;
each of the plurality of driving rollers, i.e., paper discharge rollers (86, 87), that are mentioned at col. 5, lines 31-46 and more specifically, are described as having a driving source/motor at lines 35-37, stating “rotational shaft 85 is rotated at a predetermined rate by a driving source (not shown)”, is disposed adjacent to and between two of the stationary rails, as illustrated in figures 1-6, and
during the transport of the document through a plurality of portions of the document accepting system, the document is pressed at intervals between one of the plurality of driving rollers (86, 87) and two of the stationary rails, i.e., any one of (34, 38, 84, 88, 88a, 88b, 132), as seen in figures 1-6, creating a plurality of pinch points along the transportation path (31, 81, 131) where the document deforms, and an outer edge of the document bends away from the passive side of the transportation path (31, 81, 131), as illustrated at figures 1, 3b and 6.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a passive side including a plurality of raised surfaces disposed on a surface of the transportation path, each of the plurality of raised surfaces including a stationary rail extending a distance above the surface of the transportation path,
wherein;
each of the plurality of driving rollers is disposed adjacent to and between two of the stationary rails, and
during the transport of the document through a plurality of portions of the document accepting system, the document is pressed at intervals between one of the plurality of driving rollers and two of the stationary rails, creating a plurality of pinch points along the transportation path where the document deforms and an outer edge of the document bends away from the passive side of the transportation path, as taught by Hayashi, in Nireki’s document accepting system, for the purpose of feeding/forwarding documents/banknotes through the document accepting system without generating wrinkles/crinkles in the banknote/sheet/document. Note also that a rail/roller transport nip combination is an obvious alternative to a roller on roller transport nip or to a belt on belt or roller on belt transport nip. See also Hayashi at abstract, col. 1, lines 7-14, col. 2, lines 39-52, col. 5, lines 5-9 and col. 6, lines 30-43, mentioning prevention of wrinkles/crinkles.
Regarding Claim 1, note that Nireki teaches wherein the one or more driving members, i.e., bill conveying mechanism (6), as mentioned at paragraph 36 and as illustrated in figure 4, includes at least one of:
one or more rotating elements, i.e,, rollers (14a-17b and 14b-17b) and
one or more belts, i.e., driving belt (13b) as illustrated in figure 5 and as mentioned at paragraph 45 and as mentioned at paragraph 89, which states the third sentence that “the pair of contact members may be appropriately modified such that one of the contact members may be a roller member and the other may be a belt member as well as both may be belt members“.
Therefore, regarding Claim 1, it would have been obvious to have used Hayashi’s stationary rails/ribs and driven rollers in nip configurations in Nireki's document accepting system as an alternative structure to a belt on belt, roller on roller or roller on belt nip configuration since Hayashi’s and Nireki’s devices have predictable structure and function and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the efficacy and synergy of the combination based upon the references' teachings as well as common sense, logic and reason.
Note also that having such a ribbed structure versus a larger surface reduces the friction used to move each sheet as it is transported through the system thus reducing the possibility of a jam.
Regarding Claim 1, Nireki does not expressly teach at least a portion of the transportation path is disposed within a plurality of removable housings for storing documents,
at least one of the plurality of removable housings includes at least one openable panel, and
the at least one openable panel is disposed over a side exterior surface of the at least one of the plurality of removable housings and includes the stationary rail on an inside surface of the at least one openable panel operable to, along with one or more rollers of the plurality of driving rollers positioned on the side exterior surface and opposite the stationary rail when the at least one openable side panel is in the closed position, transport a banknote along the side exterior surface to another one of the plurality of removable housings in the stacked arrangement.
Regarding Claim 1, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Voellmer teaches at least a portion of the transportation path, i.e., longitudinal cross conveying device (7, 7’) each with inputs (16, 16’) and outputs (17, 17’) as illustrated in figures 4 and 5, is disposed within a plurality of removable housings, i.e., at least one output module (25, 25’), for storing documents, i.e., banknotes (3).
Note that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have duplicated a single module to include a second, third or more modules for the purpose of increasing storage capacity for handling an increased volume of banknotes.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided at least a portion of the transportation path is disposed within a plurality of removable housings for storing documents, as taught by Voellmer, in Nireki’s document accepting system, for the purpose of providing increase in capacity to handle higher banknote throughput.
Regarding Claim 1, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Jones teaches
at least one of the plurality of removable housings, i.e, printer/imaging device (10), as illustrated in figure 3, includes at least one openable panel, i.e., door (40) as mentioned at paragraph 27 and as illustrated in figure 3, and
the at least one openable panel (40) is disposed over a side exterior surface, i.e. the front side (22) as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, of the at least one of the plurality of removable housings (10) and includes the stationary rail, i.e., parallel ribs (48), on an inside surface, i.e., inner surface (40-5), of the at least one openable panel (40) operable to, along with one or more rollers of the plurality of driving rollers, as taught by Hayashi, positioned on the side exterior surface and opposite the stationary rail, as taught by Hayashi, when the at least one openable side panel (40) is in the closed position, transport a banknote along the side exterior surface (22) to another one of the plurality of removable housings, as taught by Voellmer.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided at least one of the plurality of removable housings includes at least one openable panel, and
the at least one openable panel is disposed over a side exterior surface of the at least one of the plurality of removable housings and includes the stationary rail on an inside surface of the at least one openable panel operable to, along with one or more rollers of the plurality of driving rollers, positioned on the side exterior surface and opposite the stationary rail when the at least one openable side panel is in the closed position, transport a banknote along the side exterior surface to another one of the plurality of removable housings, as taught by Jones, in Nireki’s document accepting system, for the purpose of providing access during maintenance issues such as jam clearances, for example, using common mechanical components.
Therefore, regarding Claim 1, it would have been obvious to have used Hayashi’s stationary rails/ribs and driven rollers in nip configurations in Nireki's document accepting system as an alternative structure to a belt on belt, roller on roller or roller on belt nip configuration along with Voellmer’s teaching of adding at least one module to a single module to expand banknote storage capacity, along with Jones’ teaching of an openable panel for access to the internal document path, since Hayashi’s, Veollmer’s, Jones’ and Nireki’s devices have predictable structure and function and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the efficacy and synergy of the combination based upon the references' teachings as well as common sense, logic and reason.
Regarding Claim 1, Nireki does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of removable housing for storing documents, wherein the plurality of removable housings is in a stacked arrangement and each is configured to be separately removable from the banknote accepting system.
Regarding Claim 1, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Fujioka teaches wherein the plurality of removable housings for storing documents, i.e., bill accommodating boxes (81-83) as illustrated in figure 3, wherein the plurality of removable housings (81-83) is in a stacked arrangement, as illustrated in figure 3, and each is configured to be separately removable from the banknote accepting system, as illustrated in figures 3, 6a and 6b and as mentioned at col. 6, lines 18-33, which states as follows.
(11) The bill recycle machine 1 constructed in the above manner is mounted inside a lower portion of the automated teller machine 101 as shown in FIG. 1. It is possible to employ a front side operation type or a back side operation type depending upon the type of the machine, and the construction correspondingly varies somewhat. As shown in FIG. 6A, the front side operation type machine, on a front side of which a clerk in charge performs operation, is constructed such that a front door 101c can be opened and closed, and when, as shown in the figure, the front door 101c is opened and the front-side open/close transport path 90A of the bill recycle machine 1 is opened, bill accommodating boxes each provided with a handle appear. The clerk in charge can pull out the respective accommodating boxes with the handle to perform operations such as replenishment and recovery of bills, and other maintenance work.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided teach wherein the plurality of removable housing for storing documents, wherein the plurality of removable housings is in a stacked arrangement and each is configured to be separately removable from the banknote accepting system, as taught by Fujioka, in Nireki’s document accepting system, for the purpose of providing a document accepting system with a larger banknote storage volume while maintaining a smaller footprint via the stacking of the banknote cassettes vertically instead of spreading them out horizontally, for example.
Regarding Claim 6, Nireki teaches wherein at least a portion of the transportation path (3), as illustrated in figures 2 and 3, is disposed within one or more removable housings, i.e., apparatus main body (2), as illustrated in figures 1-6a and as mentioned at paragraph 28, noting also that open/close/raised surface (2b) as illustrated in figures 1-6a and 7 can be construed as removable, and noting that bill housing/stacker/cashbox/cassette (100), as illustrated in figure 4 and as mentioned in paragraph 28, can be construed as a removable module as well, which includes a portion of the transportation path (3) including rollers (103), as mentioned in paragraph 38, and which are driven through housing part side drivetrain (124) which connects to drivetrain (120), motor (20) and main body side gear train (21), as mentioned in paragraphs 54 and 55, so that when cash box (100) is removed from the main body (2), the cash box (100) retains its portion of the transport path (103) so that the cash box (100) may be transported to another document accepting system to either empty the banknote contents or to refill the banknote contents accordingly as desired,
wherein the plurality of removable housings (2, 2b, 100) is operable to be installed in, and removed from, the document accepting system (1).
Regarding Claim 8, Nireki teaches wherein the at least one openable panel, i.e., open/close member (2b), as mentioned at paragraph 29 and 30, and as illustrated in figures 1-3 and 7, provides access to a portion of the transportation path (3).
Regarding Claim 14, Nireki does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of removable housings include at least one of:
an acceptor housing including components operable to receive and transport documents through a portion of the document accepting system;
a sensor housing including components operable to recognize documents received in the document accepting system;
a recycler housing including components operable to receive documents from, and dispense documents to, another one of the plurality of removable housings in the document accepting system; and
a cashbox module/housing including components operable to store documents received from another one of the removable modules in the document accepting system.
Regarding Claim 14, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Fujioka teaches wherein the plurality of removable housings, i.e., interpreted as any modular component such as upper transport mechanism (1a), bill accommodating boxes (80-83), bill discriminating unit (30), or sensors as mentioned at col. 6, lines 1-8, as illustrated in figure 3, for example, include at least one of:
an acceptor housing, i.e., bill discriminator (30) as illustrated in figure 3 and as mentioned at col. 5, line 61-col. 6, line 8, including components operable to receive and transport documents through a portion of the document accepting system, i.e., noting that bill discriminator (30) includes several rollers as seen in figure 3, for example;
a sensor housing including components operable to recognize documents received in the document accepting system, noting the mention of sensors in col. 6, lines 1-8 and the mention of an image sensor in col. 7, lines 19-30, for example;
a recycler housing, i.e., recycle boxes (82 and 82), including components operable to receive documents from, and dispense documents to, another one of the plurality of removable housings (1a, 30, 80-83), for example, in the document accepting system; and
a cashbox module/housing, i.e., interpreted as safe (1b) or load recovery box (81) or non-circulating box/storage box (80), as illustrated in figure 3, including components operable to store documents received from another one of the removable modules (1a, 30, 80-83) in the document accepting system, as illustrated in figures 1-14.
Regarding Claim 21, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 26, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 27, see the rejection of Claim 8, above.
Regarding Claim 30, see the rejection of Claim 14, above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nireki (US 2009/0121415 A1) in view of Hayashi (US 5,312,108), further in view of Voellmer et al (US 6,439,395 B1), further in view of Jones et al (US 2017/0313533 A1), further in view of Fujioka (US 6,971,573 B2) and further in view of Imura (US 2012/0074643 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Nireki teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 9, Nireki teaches wherein the at least one openable panel (2b) includes a first openable panel (2b).
Regarding Claim 9, Nireki does not expressly teach wherein the at least one openable panel includes a first openable panel and a second openable panel, wherein the first openable panel opens to the active side of the transportation path, and wherein the second openable panel opens to the passive side of the transportation path.
Regarding Claim 9, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Imura teaches wherein the at least one openable panel includes a first openable panel, i.e., chassis (2) and a second openable panel, i.e., chassis (3) as mentioned at paragraphs 20-22 and as illustrated in figure 5, wherein the first openable panel (2) opens to the active side of the transportation path, i.e., feeding path (11), as mentioned at paragraph 20 and as illustrated in figures 1-3, and noting that rollers (6) are located on chassis (2), and wherein the second openable panel (3) opens to the passive side of the transportation path (11) noting that rollers (7) are located on chassis (3), and that both rollers (6) and (7) act as nip rollers to place pressure on the sheet moving between them.
Regarding Claim 9, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the at least one openable panel includes a first openable panel and a second openable panel, wherein the first openable panel opens to the active side of the transportation path, and wherein the second openable panel opens to the passive side of the transportation path, as taught by Imura, in Nireki’s document acceptance system for the purpose of enabling access to both the active and the passive side of the transport system to remove jams and to enable maintenance to be performed on either the passive or active side transport mechanisms.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nireki (US 2009/0121415 A1) in view of Hayashi (US 5,312,108), further in view of Voellmer et al (US 6,439,395 B1), further in view of Jones et al (US 2017/0313533 A1), further in view of Fujioka (US 6,971,573 B2) and further in view of Ozaki (US 2010/0030372 A1).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Nireki teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 12, Nireki does not expressly teach wherein the at least one openable panel includes an indicator light configured to indicate an issue in the at least one of the plurality of removable housings.
Regarding Claim 12, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Ozaki teaches wherein the at least one openable panel includes an indicator light, i.e., displays (104, 105 and 107), as illustrated in figure 1, configured to indicate an issue, such as a jam, as illustrated in figures 1 and 4 and as mentioned at paragraphs 25-27, 34 and 40, for example, in the at least one of the plurality of removable modules, i.e., stackers (106). Note also sensors (202) in figure 2, which are used to indicate a jam, and which are located throughout the transport path.
Regarding Claim 12, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the at least one openable panel includes an indicator light configured to indicate an issue in the at least one of the plurality of removable modules, as taught by Ozaki, in Nireki’s document acceptance system for the purpose of indicating events such as jams that require attention from the operator so that maintenance may be performed on either the passive or active side transport mechanisms.
Since Ozaki’s and Nireki’s apparatus’ have predictable structure and function, it would have been obvious to have located a display as taught by Ozaki on each module similar to Ozaki’s location of a display for each stacker location for the purpose of indicating which module, i.e., which stacker, has an issue that requires attention from the operator.
Regarding Claim 13, see the rejection of Claim 12, above.
Claim(s) 16-18, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nireki (US 2009/0121415 A1) in view of Hayashi (US 5,312,108), further in view of Voellmer et al (US 6,439,395 B1), further in view of Jones et al (US 2017/0313533 A1), Fujioka (US 6,971,573 B2) and further in view of Gu et al (KR20100083274A).
Regarding Claims 16-18, 28 and 29, Nireki teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 16, Nireki does not expressly teach further comprising a capacitive sensor.
Regarding Claim 16, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Gu teaches further comprising a capacitive sensor (30) as illustrated in figure 5 and as mentioned at p. 8, fifth full paragraph.
Regarding Claim 16, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided further comprising a capacitive sensor, as taught by Gu, in Nireki’s document acceptance system for the purpose of detecting various electrostatic and capacitive features of banknotes as well as for detecting jams.
Regarding Claim 17, Nireki does not expressly teach wherein the capacitive sensor includes at least one capacitive plate on the active side of the transportation path, wherein the at least one capacitive plate includes a transmitter electrode and a receiver electrode, and wherein, when a document is present, the capacitive sensor detects a change in a capacitance as a presence of the document displaces air in a transportation path capacitance.
Regarding Claim 17, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Gu teaches wherein the capacitive sensor (30) includes at least one capacitive plate, i.e., transmission conductor plate (31), as illustrated in figures 3 and 7, and as mentioned at p. 11, last paragraph, on the active side of the transportation path, as illustrated in figure 7, wherein the at least one capacitive plate (31) includes a transmitter electrode (31) and a receiver electrode (32), and wherein, when a document (33) is present, the capacitive sensor (30) detects a change in a capacitance as a presence of the document (33) displaces air in a transportation path capacitance.
Regarding Claim 18, Nireki does not expressly teach wherein at least one active electrode, of the capacitive sensor is disposed on the active side of the transportation path, and wherein at least one passive electrode of the capacitive sensor is disposed on the passive side of the transportation path.
Regarding Claim 18, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Gu teaches wherein at least one active electrode, i.e., transmission conductor plate (31), which is considered to be active because it is transmitting, of the capacitive sensor (30) is disposed on the active side of the transportation path, as illustrated in figures 3 and 7, and wherein at least one passive electrode (32) of the capacitive sensor (30) is disposed on the passive side of the transportation path, as illustrated in figures 3 and 7, noting that Applicant provides no criticality as to whether the active/transmitting capacitor plate corresponds to the active side of the path, i.e., the side of the roller driven by the motor versus the passive roller side.
Regarding Claim 28 see the rejection of Claims 16-18, above.
Regarding Claim 29 see the rejection of Claims 16-18, above.
Note that official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to have provided a determination based on the measurements and to have output a signal from the processor indicating the transport issue is corrected.
Since Applicant has not traversed the taking of official notice, it is taken as fact that it would have been obvious to have provided a determination based on the measurements and to have output a signal from the processor indicating the transport issue is corrected.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nireki (US 2009/0121415 A1) in view of Hayashi (US 5,312,108), further in view of Voellmer et al (US 6,439,395 B1), further in view of Jones et al (US 2017/0313533 A1), Fujioka (US 6,971,573 B2), further in view of Gu et al (KR20100083274A) and further in view of Whiteman (US 2015/0356805 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Nireki teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 19, Nireki does not expressly teach wherein at least one active electrode of the capacitive sensor is disposed on the active side of the transportation path, and wherein at least one passive electrode is the document transported in the transportation path.
Regarding Claim 19, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Whiteman teaches wherein at least one active electrode of the capacitive sensor (8), as illustrated in figure 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 42, is disposed on the active side of the transportation path, as illustrated in figure 2, and wherein at least one passive electrode, i.e., the holographic foil (11) on banknote (1), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, is the document transported in the transportation path, noting that paragraphs 42-44 mentions as follows.
[0042] The capacitive contact sensor 8 may be implemented by using known sensor technology. It is of course necessary to select an appropriate sensor for the application in question and in the present case this is determined by the relatively small amount of conductive material present in a holographic foil 11. The sensor 8 in this case is driven by an alternating current signal under the control of the microcomputer 15, although some sensors may be powered by direct current. The actual sensing area of the sensor 8 may be encircled by a guard so as to contain the electric field generated. It will be appreciated here that a number of different design options are available for implementing the capacitive sensing. One major consideration is whether to rely upon mutual capacitance or self capacitance (also known as absolute capacitance), the latter requiring some greater consideration of the electrical grounding of the capacitive element. As will be appreciated, one or each of the sensor 8 and foil 11, will need to have a dielectric coating so as to produce a capacitive structure when the foil 11 and sensor 8 come into close contact.
[0043] When the holographic foil 11 travels past the sensor 8 the presence of the foil close to the detection area of the sensor affects the electric field in the sensing region of the sensor 8. This change in capacitance exists whilst the foil 11 provides capacitive coupling with the sensor 8. The change in the capacitance of the alternating current drive circuit is detected by the computer 15.
[0044] In the most simple case the computer is merely programmed to detect a predetermined magnitude of magnetic field using the magnetic sensor 9 and a predetermined capacitance from the sensor 8. If sufficient signals are detected from each sensor in a similar area then the computer produces an output signal which powers a small LED 13 on the handle 6, together with a small buzzer 14, in each case to alert the user that the bank note 1 has met the requirements of having magnetic and capacitive elements.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 19, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein at least one active electrode of the capacitive sensor is disposed on the active side of the transportation path, and wherein at least one passive electrode is the document transported in the transportation path, as taught by Whiteman, in Nireki’s document acceptance system for the purpose of detecting various electrostatic and capacitive features of banknotes.
Claim(s) 20, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nireki (US 2009/0121415 A1) in view of Hayashi (US 5,312,108), further in view of Voellmer et al (US 6,439,395 B1), further in view of Jones et al (US 2017/0313533 A1), Fujioka (US 6,971,573 B2), further in view of Gu et al (KR20100083274A) and further in view of Kumagai (US 2014/0027355 A1).
Regarding Claims 20, 28 and 29, Nireki teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 20, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Gu teaches further comprising a capacitive sensor (30) as illustrated in figure 5 and as mentioned at p. 8, fifth full paragraph.
Regarding Claim 20, Nireki does not expressly teach further comprising a processor configured to:
receive measurements using the capacitive sensor;
determine, based on the measurements, a location of a document jam in the document accepting system; and
output a signal indicating the document jam.
Regarding Claim 20, Nireki does not expressly teach, but Kumagai teaches further comprising a processor, i.e., main control unit (111) as mentioned at paragraphs 20, 22 and as illustrated in figure 2, configured to:
receive measurements using the capacitive sensor, as taught by Gu;
determine, based on the measurements, a location of a document jam in the document accepting system, noting that Nireki’s passage sensors detect a jam and Gu’s capacitive sensor is capable of sensing a jammed banknote having a capacitive feature; and
output a signal indicating the document jam, as taught by Kumagai via Kumagai’s main control unit’s connection with passage sensors (111).
Regarding Claim 20, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided further comprising a processor configured to:
receive measurements using the capacitive sensor;
determine, based on the measurements, a location of a document jam in the document accepting system; and
output a signal indicating the document jam,
as taught by Kumagai and Gu, in Nireki’s document acceptance system for the purpose of detecting various electrostatic and capacitive features of banknotes as well as for detecting jams.
Note that since Kumagai’s Gu’s and Nireki’s apparatus’ have predictable structure and function, it would have been obvious to have provided capacitive sensors as taught by Gu, as the passage sensors taught by Kumagai in Nireki’s apparatus because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the efficacy and synergy of the combination based upon the references' teachings as well as common sense, logic and reason.
Regarding Claim 28, see the rejection of Claims 16-18 and 20, above, noting that a document jam is considered to be a transport issue.
Regarding Claim 29, see the rejection of Claims 16-18 and 20, above, noting that a document jam is considered to be a transport issue.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 9, 12-14, 16-21 and 26-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saltsov ‘284 is cited as teaching replaceable sensor modules (4) as mentioned at col. 3, lines 20-31 and as illustrated in figures 1-3, for example.
Saltsov ‘383 is cited as teaching replaceable sensor modules (4) as mentioned at col. 5, line 47-col. 6, line 2 and as illustrated in figures 6 and 7, for example.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached on 571-270-3614. 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.
/JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
February 14, 2026