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 (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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein et al (US 2015/0146963 A1) in view of Pratten et al (US 2020/0111085 A1) and further in view of Mastie et al (US 2004/0222283 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Klein teaches
a method for processing valuable documents, as illustrated in figures 8a and 8b, for example, comprising the steps of:
determining, i.e., steps (804, 812) as illustrated in figures 8a and 8b and as mentioned at paragraph 371, for example, first identification data, i.e., banknote serial numbers as mentioned at paragraph 372, for example, on the basis of which the valuable documents, i.e., banknotes/currency notes//bills/substitute currency notes as mentioned at paragraphs 105-107,
contained in at least one batch of valuable documents, i.e., as mentioned at paragraphs 115-122, are identifiable, i.e., via image scanner (140a, 140b) and OCR software as mentioned at paragraph 138, in at least one
valuable document processing device, i.e., (101a, 101b), transmitting the first identification data via an internet service, i.e., noting step (806), “transmit customer data file to financial institution”, and noting the mention of “internet/online banks in paragraph 111 and communications connected to a network/internet as mentioned at paragraphs 153, 353, 455, 546, 612 and 809, to an external computing device, i.e., computer (151) or a server, as mentioned at paragraph 150 and as illustrated in figure 1, or computer (450a, 450b) as illustrated in figures 4a and 4b and as mentioned at paragraphs 251 and 252, for example, determining first sorting data which contain serial numbers, i.e., step (812) “compare currency bill serial number with serial number database” and noting the types of sorting data able to be used so sort valuable documents such as mentioned at paragraphs 152, 198, and 439, for example, in the external computing device (151, 450a, 450b) by comparing the transmitted first identification data with specified second identification data, noting again the characteristics as mentioned in paragraphs 152, 198, and 439, and noting step (814) “does currency bill serial number match serial number data base” for example, on the basis of which valuable documents that should be withdrawn from circulation and/or should remain in circulation are identifiable, i.e., noting the mention of genuine and suspect bills at paragraph 110, which should remain in circulation and be recycled/used in transactions, and the mention of identifying counterfeit currency/suspect bills in paragraph 135, for example, which should be withheld as being used in circulation in transactions because of their status/condition, transmitting the first sorting data from the external computing device (151, 450a, 450b) to the at least one valuable document processing device (101a, 101b) and noting figure 8b, step (834) “transmit flagged customer record(s) to financial institution document processing system” and paragraph 382, for example, and
sorting the valuable documents contained in the at least one batch in the at least one valuable document processing device (101a, 101b) on the basis of the transmitted first sorting data, i.e., step (842) “off-sort or stop and present documents” as illustrated in figure 8b, and as mentioned at paragraph 382, noting the mention of flagging documents and off-sorting them into output receptacles, for example.
Regarding Claim 9, Klein does not expressly teach specified second identification data stored in a whitelist on the external computing device.
Regarding Claim 9, Klein does not expressly teach, but Pratten teaches the concept of specified second identification data stored in a whitelist on the external computing device, as mentioned at paragraphs 82-85, for example, which state as follows.
[0034] Each of the automated teller machine 100, the ATM switch 110, and the foreign exchange rate service device 120 may be in geographically disparate locations. Put differently, each of the automated teller machine 100, the ATM switch 110, and the foreign exchange rate service device 120 may be remote from one or both of the others of the automated teller machine 100, the ATM switch 110, and the foreign exchange rate service device 120.
[0082] For example, dynamic foreign exchange may be restricted to tokens associated with partner institutions of a financial institution associated with the automated teller machine 100. Accordingly, such a database or look-up table may provide a “whitelist” of institutions for which dynamic foreign exchange should be provided. For example, the issuer of a token may be compared to a whitelist identifying issuers for which dynamic foreign exchange should be provided. In a particular example, a portion of a card number providing an IIN (e.g., the portion 730 (FIG. 7)) could be compared to such a whitelist.
[0083] In another example, a “blacklist” of institutions for which dynamic foreign exchange should not be provided may be maintained. For example, dynamic foreign exchange may only be offered for tokens issued by an issuer not on such a blacklist. According, issuers information may similarly be compared to such a blacklist in manners similar to comparing to a whitelist as described above.
[0084] Additionally or alternatively, it may be that the issuer information is used to identify additional information based on which a determination is made. For example, based on the issuer information (e.g., an IIN), a location of the issuing institution may be determined. It may then be that dynamic foreign exchange is only offered if the issuer is located in particular locales or is not offered if an issuer is located in particular locales. Notably, such a determination may be made based on location whitelists and/or blacklists. Similarly, it may be that a currency associated with the token is determined based on issuer information. It may then be that dynamic foreign exchange is only offered for certain currencies. For example, a whitelist of currencies for which dynamic foreign should be offered and/or a blacklist of currencies for which dynamic foreign exchange should not be offered may be maintained. Notably, dynamic foreign exchange should not be offered where the underlying currency associated with the token used to access the automated teller machine 100 (e.g., the currency of accounts associated with that token) is the same as the currency as would be used by the automated teller machine 100 in performing a transaction (i.e., to denominate the transaction at the automated teller machine 100). In a particular example, if the automated teller machine 100 is being used for a withdrawal, the automated teller machine 100 is configured to dispense Canadian dollars, and the token used to access the automated teller machine 100 for performing the withdrawal has an associated currency of Canadian dollars, the dynamic foreign exchange should not be offered as no exchange is needed.
[0085] In some embodiments, multiple whitelists and/or blacklists may be consulted in an ordered fashion in order to determine whether to offer dynamic foreign exchange for a particular issuer. For example, it may be that dynamic foreign exchange is to be offered for all cards from a particular issuer (which can be checked based on a whitelist of issuers for which dynamic foreign exchange should be offered) except for cards associated with a particular currency (which could be checked by, for issuer information passing the first check, comparing a currency associated with that issuer information against a currency whitelist or a currency blacklist). Other combinations and/or orderings of whitelists and blacklists are possible including, for example, whitelists and/or blacklists that are only selectively considered such as, for example, a whitelist of currencies relative to a particular issuing country.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 9, Klein does not expressly teach, but Mastie teaches specified second identification data stored in a whitelist on the external device, as mentioned at abstract and paragraphs 32-34 and 41-44, for example, which state as follows.
Abstract
The invention includes systems, methods and program products for providing real-time point-of-sale paper currency, i.e., bill, authentication and recordation. The invention provides a point-of-sale terminal capable of real-time authentication and recordation of paper currency, a currency monitoring system for tracking paper currency usage and conducting paper currency authentication relative to a currency issuing entity's database, and a reconciliation system for reconciling a point-of-sale terminal.
[0032] Face data determinator 26 (hereinafter "FDD 26") is capable of conducting bill image processing to determine authenticating data 20 for a face of bill 14. As illustrated, in one embodiment, FDD 26 includes an optical character recognition (OCR) module 34. FDD 26 may also include any of a variety of image data-related processing modules for such things as: rotation correction, image aliasing correction, error corrections, magnetic ink character recognition (MICR), etc. Referring to FIG. 2, OCR module 34, in one embodiment, determines authenticating data 20 in the form of at least one serial number 100 and/or a face denomination 102 of bill 14. "Face denomination" 102 is that amount that is indicated on the surface (front or back) of bill 14. On certain currency issuing entities bills (e.g., US bills), a plurality of serial numbers 100A, 100B are provided, and may be ascertained as authenticating data 20 for purposes to be described below. In the bill 14 shown in FIG. 2, the serial number(s) are "BI 20336464 A" and the face denomination is $20. Although FDD 26 and OCR module 34 are shown as part of POS terminal 16, it should be recognized that either or both parts may be provided remote from POS terminal 16, e.g., at a merchant site system 36 such that a single FDD 26 and/or a single OCR module 34 may be provided for a number of POS terminals 16.
[0033] Bill authenticator 28 (hereinafter "authenticator 28") provides one or more mechanisms for checking the authenticity of bill 14. As will be discussed further, "authenticity," as used herein, can take a variety of forms. For example, authenticity may include an indication of a bill's state relative to counterfeiting, physical condition, theft and/or other parameters. In one embodiment, authenticator 28 may include: a communicator 40; a strip analyzer 42; a comparator 44; and other authenticator(s) 46.
[0034] Communicator 40 is provided to communicate authenticating data 20 to and from a currency monitoring system 50. Communicator 40 may include, for example, a modem, digital signal line (DSL), or other well-known telecommunications system, a local area network, wide area network, etc. In one particular example, communicator 40 may include structure similar to communicators provided in well-known credit card authorization systems. While full details of currency monitoring system 50 will be discussed in more detail below, system 50 is capable of authenticating a bill 14 by evaluating authenticating data 20 transmitted thereto from POS terminal 16 by communicator 40. Once currency monitoring system 50 determines whether bill 14 is authentic, communicator 40 receives an authentication response 52. As noted above, authenticity can take a variety of forms. Accordingly, authentication response 52 may include a variety of authenticity indicators. In one embodiment, authentication response 52 may include four types of responses that may be used alone or in combination. First, an "authenticated" response may be used to indicate that bill 14 is authentic and usable; second, a "reject" response may be used to indicate that bill 14 is physically unsuitable for use, e.g., because it is torn, marked, worn, or otherwise unsuitable; third, a "counterfeit" response may be used to indicate bill 14 is suspected to be counterfeit; and fourth, a "stolen" response may be used to indicate that bill 14 is suspected as stolen property. It should be recognized that authentication response 52 may include other types of responses depending on the types of authentication evaluated.
III. Currency Monitoring System
[0041] Currency monitoring system 50 ("CMS" in FIG. 1) provides bill 14 authentication by evaluating authenticating data 20 transmitted thereto from POS terminal 16 by communicator 40. In particular, currency monitoring system 50 provides bill 14 authenticating that is not readily completed at POS terminal 16. Currency monitoring system 50 will preferably function at sufficient speed that no unacceptable delays occur at POS terminal 16. For example, currency monitoring system 50 may operate at speeds similar to current credit card authorization systems. Currency monitoring system 50 may be owned/managed by, for example, a government agency such as the US Federal Reserve or the US Treasury, a trusted third party, foreign market equivalents of the preceding, or a combination thereof.
[0042] In one embodiment, currency monitoring system 50 includes a communicator 80, an authenticator 82 and an archiver 84. Communicator 80 is provided to communicate certain types of authenticating data 20 to and from currency monitoring system 50, and may include, for example, a modem, digital signal line (DSL), or other well-known telecommunications system, a local area network, wide area network, etc. In one particular example, communicator 80 may include structure similar to communicators provided in well-known credit card authorization systems. Currency monitoring system 50 is also linked to, or includes, a currency database 86. Currency database 86 may be owned/managed by, for example, the US Federal Reserve, the US Treasury, a trusted third party, foreign market equivalents of the preceding, or a combination thereof. Currency database 86 may include practically any data relative to one or more currency issuing entities' currency. For example, currency database 86 may include: all active currency serial numbers for a specific currency issuing entity, serial numbers and/or images of bills reported as stolen and/or known to be counterfeit, serial number and denomination correspondence, and other currency data for one or more currency issuing entities.
[0043] Authenticator 82 functions to authenticate bill 14 by conducting at least one evaluation relative to bill 14 using authenticating data 20 and/or currency database 86. In one example, evaluation may include verifying whether a bill's serial number 100 (FIG. 2) is authentic. This verification may be conducted, for example, by a comparator 83 of authenticator 82 comparing bill serial number 100 (FIG. 2), received as authenticating data 20 from POS terminal 16, to all active currency serial numbers for a specific currency issuing entity. If a bill's serial number is not active, it indicates that bill 14 is fraudulent (i.e., non-authentic). In another example, evaluation may include verifying whether a bill denomination corresponds to the bill serial number. That is, whether the serial number is an appropriate number for use on currency of the particular denomination (face and/or strip denomination) for the specific currency issuing entity's currency. If a bill's serial number is not appropriate for the bill's denomination, it indicates that bill 14 is fraudulent (i.e., non-authentic). In another example, authenticator 82 may evaluate a physical state of bill 14 by evaluating bill image(s) 18 to determine whether bill 14 is torn, marked, worn, or otherwise unsuitable for use. This evaluation may be completed, for example, by comparator 83 comparing bill image(s) 18 to an acceptable standard (not shown) to determine whether bill 14 is unsuitable for use.
[0044] Once authenticator 82 has completed its evaluation(s), an authentication response 52 may be transmitted back to POS terminal 16 via communicator 80. As described-above, authentication response 52 may include, for example, four types of responses that may be used alone or in combination: "authenticated" to indicate that bill 14 is authentic and usable; "reject" to indicate that bill 14 is physically unsuitable for use; "counterfeit" to indicate bill 14 is suspected to be counterfeit; and "stolen" to indicate that bill 14 is suspected as stolen property. If other evaluations are conducted, authentication response 52 may include other forms of response to represent the findings of those evaluations.
Emphasis provided.
Although Mastie does not expressly mention the terms “whitelist” or “blacklist”, the data and information described in paragraphs 32-34 and 41-44, for example, is the same as that used for whitelist and blacklist data as defined by Applicant’s specification and claims.
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 specified second identification data stored in a whitelist on the external computing device, as taught by Pratten and Mastie, in Klein’s valuable document processing system for the purpose of processing valuable documents using common whitelist and blacklist data available from central bank systems, along with the sensed data of all individual banknotes accepted by Klein’s value document systems, for example.
Regarding Claim 10, Klein teaches
wherein the determination of the first identification data of the valuable documents, i.e., as seen in figure 19b at steps (1904) “image currency bills” and (1906) “extract data” and the sorting of the valuable documents, i.e., at steps (1910) “authenticate bills”, (1912) “is bill suspect?”, (1914) “transport suspect bill to suspect vault” and (1916) “return suspect bill to customer” and further transporting steps (1918-1926), for example, are implemented in the same valuable document processing device (101), (1901) as illustrated in figures 19a and 19b and as mentioned at paragraphs 253 and 664-672 for example. See also figures 15-17, document processing devices (1510, 1610, 1770).
Regarding Claim 11, Klein teaches
wherein the first identification data, i.e., represented by figure 5a, step (502) “receive data file” of the valuable documents are determined in a first valuable document processing device (101a) and the sorting of the valuable documents is implemented in a second valuable document processing device (101b) that differs from the first valuable document processing device (101a) as illustrated in figures 4a, 4b, 5a and 5b. See also figures 11c, 14-17 and 24 with document processors (1171a, 1171b, 1171n, 1173a, 1173b, 1173n, 1410a, 1410b, 1410c, 1510, 1610, 1710, 2412, 2462).
Regarding Claim 12, Klein teaches
further comprising the steps of:
recording one or more properties, i.e., characteristics such as mentioned at paragraphs 208, 439, 440 and 792, for example, of each valuable document contained in the at least one batch of valuable documents in the at least one valuable document processing device (101, 101a, 101b, 1171a, 1171b, 1171n, 1173a, 1173b, 1173n, 1410a, 1410b, 1410c, 1510, 1610, 1710, 2412, 2462) by means of one or more sensors (140a, 140b), and generating corresponding sensor data, i.e., sent to memory (160) by said image sensors (140a, 140b) as mentioned in paragraph 138 and as illustrated in figure 1, transmitting the sensor data to the external computing device (151), as mentioned in paragraphs 150, 151 and 153, for example,
checking the valuable documents contained in the at least one batch on the basis of the sensor data, i.e., such as seen at steps (812 and 814) of figure 8a, and generating corresponding second sorting data, which contain serial
numbers, i.e,. interpreted as secondary identifiers as mentioned in paragraph 12 and 13, or execution of a secondary uniqueness template algorithm as mentioned in paragraph 194, for example, transmitting the second sorting data together with the first sorting data, from the external computing device (151) to the at least one valuable document processing device (101, 101a, 101b), and sorting the valuable documents contained in the at least one batch in the at least one valuable document processing device (101, 101a, 101b) on the basis of the transmitted first and second sorting data, as illustrated in figures 8a and 8b, for example, and noting paragraph 787, which mentions secondary identifiers including “a series, a back plate number, a check letter and quadrant number, a check letter and face plate number, a Federal Reserve letter/number” and as illustrated in figures 3a-3e showing the extracted serial number/identifier data, and noting that the suspect or blacklist database can be interpreted to correspond to secondary sorting data which is checked against the primary sorting data, interpreted as the actual data obtained from each banknote so as to be checked against the master or blacklist database. See for example, figure 8a, step (812), “compare currency bill serial number with serial number database”. See also paragraph 282 mentioning transmission of a suspect or blacklist database “including records associated with suspect bills and/or records associated with checks tied to fraudulent activity” to various banks/branches/stores.
Regarding Claim 13, Klein teaches
wherein the specified second identification data, as mentioned at paragraphs 12, 13 and 198, are supplemented with the further second identification data, as mentioned at paragraph 140, including information such as back plate number, check letter, quadrant number, for example, that can be used in combination, that identify valuable documents, the check of which has yielded that they should be withdrawn from circulation and/or should remain in circulation, such as seen in figure 8a, steps (814, 816, 818), for example.
Regarding Claim 14, Klein teaches
wherein the valuable documents contained in the at least one batch or a portion of the valuable documents contained in the at least one batch are only released for circulation again following the determination of the first identification data once the valuable documents contained in the at least one batch have been sorted in the at least one valuable document processing device (101a, 101b) on the basis of the transmitted first and optionally second sorting data, as illustrated in figures 3a-3e, 8a and 8b, and as mentioned at paragraphs 282, 787, for example.
Regarding Claim 15, see the rejection of Claims 9-14, above.
Regarding Claim 16, see the rejection of Claim 9, above.
Regarding Claim 17, Klein teaches wherein the sorting is done by the at least one valuable document processing device, i.e., via image scanner (140a, 140b) and OCR software as mentioned at paragraphs 127-129 and 138, noting also the communications port (180) which enables communication with remote systems, such as remote databases, as mentioned at paragraphs 482, 689, 732 and 854-859 and as illustrated in figures 14-16, and, document processing device (1801) as illustrated in figures 4a-8b, 11c and 18a-18g and as mentioned at paragraphs 253 and 628-649, as well as document processing device (1903), which sorts banknotes into excess vault (1907b), suspect vault (1907c) and recycle vault (1907a), as illustrated in figure 19a and paragraphs 253 and 664-682, for example.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-17 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.
Fukuda ‘292 is cited as teaching a money handling device, as illustrated in figure 30, for example, having temporary storage (34) in the form of a winding storage as mentioned at paragraphs 167 and 168, as well as winding storages (37, 371, 372), as mentioned at paragraphs 357-365, along with storage cassettes (36, 361-366), multi-purpose cassette (3), collection cassette (35), deposit unit (21), dispensing unit (23) and recognition unit (24), as mentioned at paragraphs 145-152, for example.
Renz ‘505, incorporated by reference in Klein ‘963 at paragraph 127, is cited as teaching a money handling device (100a), as illustrated in figure 3b and as mentioned at paragraph 84, for example, having storage cassettes/receptacles (106a-106f), temporary storage/escrow regions (116a-116f) and recognition unit/evaluation region (108), as mentioned at paragraphs 75-76, for example. Note also control device (120).
Urian ‘061 is cited as teaching use of a whitelist as “a positive list” as mentioned at paragraph 50.
Taylor ‘446 is cited as teaching a currency inspection mobile device (100, 200), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, with network (215) and server (220) connected to mobile device (205) and (210), in which currency attributes may be stored on the mobile device or loaded onto the device from the server, as mentioned at paragraph 53. See also paragraph 63 mentioning program code that may execute partly or entirely either locally on the mobile device or remotely on the server, as mentioned at paragraph 66, for example. See also paragraph 43, mentioning comparative currency analysis performed on the server based on received measurement data from currency device (210).
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
August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights