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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, last three lines, the phrase “and whereby variations of the paper sheets occurring at a time of insertion are resolved and a foreign object is dropped through gaps of the support member” is unclear and indefinite as it unclear what is meant by “variations of paper sheets” and how they might occur at the time of insertion. For example, variations in paper sheets, particularly banknotes could be banknotes of various sizes or variations of the features printed on the surface, for example. For the purposes of examination, the phrase “variations in paper sheets” are interpreted as meaning the justification of different sized banknotes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi et al (US 2008/0142583 A1) in view of Pennini et al (US 5,996,314), further in view of Hansen (US 2020/0229453 A1), further in view of Enenkel (US 2008/0185768 A1) and further in view of Fujita et al (US 2010/0213660 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoi teaches
a paper sheet handling apparatus, i.e., bill depositing/withdrawing apparatus (1) as illustrated in figures 1 and 4, comprising:
a support member, i.e., bill hopper (216) having a bottom surface, as illustrated in figure 5, that is disposed so as to face a taking out port, i.e., bill slot (21), and supports a lower end of the paper sheet, i.e., bills (210) as mentioned at paragraph 64; and
a detection sensor, i.e., inlet sensor (223), as mentioned at paragraph 79 and as illustrated in figures 5, 6, 12 and 13, that detects an entry of a human hand into the taking out space, as mentioned at paragraph 79,
wherein the support member (216) moves toward the taking out port (21) to a position where the paper sheet (210) in which the lower end is supported by the support member (216), the position being detected by the detection sensor (223) at a time when the paper sheet is taken out, as illustrated in figures 5, 6, 12 and 13, noting that the user’s hand as well as the bills (210) are detected by sensor (210) as they are placed into or removed from the bills hopper (216), noting also that the detection by the sensor (210), of the banknotes/bills after they are deposited and are fully set onto the bottom of bill hopper (216), and will also depend upon the length of the banknotes,
and whereby variations of the paper sheets occurring at a time of insertion are resolved, i.e., interpreted as being the justification of a stack of banknotes with varying lengths and sizes, as illustrated in figure 5, noting the banknote stack (210) being justified by the bottom plate (216).
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoi does not expressly teach the support member vibrates, at the time of insertion of the paper sheets, in a direction toward and away from the taking-out port at a higher speed in moving away from the taking-out port than in moving toward the taking-out port.
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoi does not expressly teach, but Pennini teaches wherein the support member, i.e., stacking deck (111) as mentioned at col. 5, lines 34-50 vibrates in a direction of toward and away from the taking-out port, i.e., interpreted as moving toward the taking-out port, and into the discharge bin (19) as guided by the cover plate (153), as mentioned at col. 6, lines 31-43, and as illustrated at figures 1 and 17, for example.
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 wherein the support member, i.e., stacking deck (111) as mentioned at col. 5, lines 34-50 vibrates in a direction of toward and away from the taking-out port, as taught by Pennini, in Yokoi’s paper sheet handling apparatus for the purpose of moving banknotes toward and away from the taking-out port. Note that it would have been obvious to and well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided vibration at the time of insertion of the paper sheets, since vibration
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoi does not expressly teach the support member vibrates at the time of insertion of the paper sheets.
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoi does not expressly teach, but Enenkel teaches the support member, i.e., aligning surfaces (1, 2) as illustrated in figures 2 and 3, vibrates at the time of insertion of the paper sheets, as mentioned at paragraphs 21 and 22, as follows.
[0021] The direction of view in FIG. 1 is vertical to the edge K between both aligning surfaces 1, 2. The direction of view of FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 runs parallel to this edge K. In an alternative arrangement, a straight slot extends between the aligning surfaces. The aligning surfaces are thus not rigidly connected to each other. Each aligning surface lies in a plane. Both these planes abut in an edge. The edge lies in the slot. The effect of the alternative arrangement is that particles of dirt, mainly during vibration, slide downwards on the aligning surfaces and fall down through the slot.
[0022] The aligning surfaces 1, 2 are made from a smooth, hard-wearing material, such as metal or hard plastic. The vibrating table has a frame with four legs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 which provides it with a stable mounting. A motor 3 is connected to the frame and is designed to set both aligning surfaces 1, 2 in vibration. The motor 3 is firmly connected to the frame and is located under the aligning surfaces 1, 2. It can be switched on and off. The motor vibrates both the aligning surfaces 1, 2, for example in a manner described in US 2003/0062670 or EP 1676796.
Emphasis provided.
Note also the mention of slots for allowing foreign objects such as dirt to be vibrated out of the stack and through slots in the bottom.
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 the support member vibrates at the time of insertion of the paper sheets, as taught by Enenkel, in Yokoi’s paper sheet handling apparatus for the purpose of aligning the edges of the banknote/sheet stack and to eliminate foreign objects from within the stack.
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoi does not expressly teach whereby variations of the paper sheets occurring at a time of insertion are resolved and a foreign object is dropped through gaps of the support member.
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoi does not expressly teach, but Fujita teaches whereby variations of the paper sheets (C3) occurring at a time of insertion are resolved, i.e., via stopper (214) and bottom plate (208), as illustrated in figures 14 and 20, and a foreign object is dropped through gaps of the support member, i.e., the slit of the bottom plate (208) and into foreign substance receiving box (602) as mentioned in paragraph 73 and as illustrated in figure 4, for example. See paragraphs 64 and 73, which state as follows.
[0064] FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram showing the detailed structure of the cash deposit/withdrawal mechanism 20. The cash deposit/withdrawal mechanism 20 includes a shutter 201, a front push plate 203, a rear push plate 202, a front clamping mechanism 403, a rear clamping mechanism 402, a partition plate 600, a bottom plate 208, a foreign substance receiving box 602, a stopper 214, four actuators A1 through A3 and A6, three sensors S1 through S3, a pick roller r1, a separation roller r2, a gate roller r3, and a stack roller r4. The cash deposit/withdrawal mechanism 20 is arranged to be inclined to the direction of gravity (vertical direction).
[0073] The foreign substance receiving box 602 is provided to accumulate any foreign substances that invade through the cash slot 21 into the bill accumulation area Ra and fall through the slit of the bottom plate 208. The stopper 214 receives the bills inserted through the cash slot 21. The stopper 214 is arranged to be slidable in parallel with the shutter 201 and to be movable between a position exposed to the bill accumulation area Ra (hereafter referred to as `bill-receiving position`) and a position not exposed to the bill accumulation area Ra (hereafter referred to as `retreat position`). In the initial state, the stopper 214 is located at the bill-receiving position shown in FIG. 4. The position of the stopper 214 is determined, such that the distance between the cash slot 21 and the stopper 214 is shorter than the length of each inserted bill in its height direction (that is, in the deposit direction).
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 whereby variations of the paper sheets occurring at a time of insertion are resolved and a foreign object is dropped through gaps of the support member, as taught by Fujita, in Yokoi’s paper sheet handling apparatus for the purpose of aligning the edges of the banknote/sheet stack and to eliminate foreign objects from within the stack in an ATM type paper sheet handling apparatus.
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoi does not expressly teach the support member vibrates in a direction toward and away from the taking-out port at a higher speed in moving away from the taking-out port than in moving toward the taking-out port.
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoi does not expressly teach, but Hansen teaches the support member vibrates in a direction toward and away from the taking-out port at a higher speed in moving away from the taking-out port than in moving toward the taking-out port as mentioned at paragraph 8, which states as follows.
[0008] An example of a vibration system for an object having a sticky surface can be found in EP1840052 B1, which discloses a vibration system comprising a trough on which an object to be transported is to be placed, a reciprocating mechanism for reciprocating the trough forward and backward with respect to a transportation direction of the object, and a control unit for controlling the reciprocating mechanism so as to move the trough forward at a higher velocity than backward.
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 the support member vibrates in a direction toward and away from the taking-out port at a higher speed in moving away from the taking-out port than in moving toward the taking-out port, as taught by Hansen, in Yokoi’s paper sheet handling apparatus for the purpose of moving an article/object forward rather than backwards, towards the intended travel direction using vibrational driving forces.
Therefore, regarding Claim 1, it would have been obvious to have used Pennini’s teaching of using vibrationally driven transport to move banknotes from one place to another, along with Hansen’s teaching of using a vibrational driver with a higher speed vibration in the forward direction than a slower speed vibration in the backward direction, to cause banknotes to be transported towards the intended travel direction using vibrational driving forces, along with Enenkel’s teaching of using vibrational forces along with an angled bottom support feature with slits/slots in the bottom support to enable the stack to be justified as well as foreign objects to be vibrated out of the stack, along with Fujita’s teaching of resolving paper sheet/banknote variations along with removing foreign objects in slots/slits in the bottom support in a sheet handling device environment, in Yokoi’s paper sheet handling apparatus since Pennini’s, Hansen’s, Enenkel’s, Fujita’s and Yokoi’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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moore ‘406 is cited as teaching a vibrationally driven sheet stack justification device that uses vibrational force from an alternating magnetic field provided by an electromagnet in base (JB) as illustrated in figure 1a. for example.
Arthur ‘632 is cited as teaching a media cassette loader that has a tilted support structure to justify stacks of paper sheets placed therein as illustrated in figures 1-6, 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 at 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 10, 2026