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.
Claims 2-8 and 14-17 are 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 2, second line, the term “single element” is unclear and indefinite as there are many elements referred to in the claimed apparatus. Further, Applicant’s specification does not provide any further differentiation between said single element and other elements. Additionally, it is unclear if the single element or the pusher plate “urges the pusher plate though a substantial center of the notes” because the phrase in lines 2 and 3 states “a single element and a pusher plate that urges the pusher plate through a substantial center of the notes” appears to state that the pusher plate urges itself. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the single element urges the pusher plate.
Regarding Claim 6, second line, the terms “first element” and “second element” are unclear and indefinite as there are many elements referred to in the claimed apparatus.
See also Claim 14, which recites substantially the same limitations.
Claim 8 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 8, the last two line, the phrase “the media recycler of dispenser” is unclear and indefinite. It appears that the word “of” should be “or”.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casmiro et al (US 2022/0189258 A1) in view of Sauer et al (EP 1036637 A1) and further in view of Aterianus et al (US 4,231,558).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Casmiro teaches
a media recycler or dispenser, i.e., Self-Service Terminal (SST) as illustrated in figure 1, comprising:
at least one media cassette, i.e., cash bin (130) along with media cassette (131) as illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 21, for example, to store notes, (131D) as mentioned in paragraphs 41 and 42, for example;
wherein the at least one media cassette (130, 131) comprises:
a note destruction apparatus, i.e., ink dispensing device within cassette cover (131A) as seen in figure 4 and as mentioned at paragraph 26.
Regarding Claim 1, Casmiro does not expressly teach
a note destruction apparatus comprising pins;
comprising at least one heated element that when activated is driven through or into the notes and destroys the notes.
Regarding Claim 1, Casmiro does not expressly teach, but Sauer teaches
a note destruction apparatus comprising pins, i.e., paper drills (19) as mentioned in paragraph 15, first sentence, as illustrated in figure 3, for example, that when activated is driven through or into the notes and destroys the notes, as illustrated in figures 3 and 6, for example.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a note destruction apparatus comprising pins;
that when activated is driven through or into the notes and destroys the notes, as taught by Sauer, in Casmiro’s media recycler, for the purpose of destroying banknotes using an alternative or additional means of destruction, thus increasing the likelihood of banknote destruction.
Regarding Claim 1, Casmiro does not expressly teach, but Aterianus teaches
at least one heated element, i.e., heated pins (768), as mentioned in col. 25, lines 55-61 and as mentioned at col. 26, lines 45-50, mentioning “heated pins (not shown) carried by the upper jaws 764 of each punch 752”, for example, that when activated is driven through or into the notes and destroys the notes, as illustrated in figures 30 and 31, for example.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided at least one heated element;
that when activated is driven through or into the notes and destroys the notes, as taught by Aterianus, in Casmiro’s media recycler, for the purpose of destroying banknotes using an alternative or additional means of destruction via securing the batch of banknotes together through heat at the same time the batch is punctured, thus increasing the likelihood of banknote destruction.
Regarding Claim 2, Casmiro does not expressly teach
wherein the note destruction apparatus comprises a single element and a pusher plate that urges the pusher plate through a substantial center of the notes within the at least one media cassette.
Regarding Claim 2, Casmiro does not expressly teach, but Sauer teaches
wherein the note destruction apparatus comprises a single element, i.e., cylinder (1) as mentioned in paragraph 12, first sentence, and a pusher plate, i.e., pressing plate (13), guide plate (17) and drill receiving plate (18) as illustrated in figure 3 and as mentioned at paragraph 15, that urges the pusher plate (13, 17, 18) through a substantial center of the notes within the at least one media cassette, via cylinder (1).
Regarding Claim 3, Casmiro does not expressly teach wherein the single element is a metal rod, screw, nail or wire.
Regarding Claim 3, Casmiro does not expressly teach, but Sauer teaches wherein the single element is a metal rod, i.e., hydraulic cylinder (1), screw, nail or wire.
Regarding Claim 4, Casmiro does not expressly teach wherein the single element is at least a length of a note capacity area of the at least one media cassette
Note that it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In Re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 4, Casmiro does not expressly teach, but Sauer teaches wherein the single element (1) is at least a length of a note capacity area of the at least one media cassette, i.e., interpreted as the length of the thickness of the area where banknotes/objects to be invalidated (14) are located, noting the cutting bushings (23) are located at the end of the travel of each paper drill (19), as illustrated in figure 3 and as mentioned at paragraphs 14 and 15, for example. Note also that the particular size of the paper drill/single element is considered a matter of design choice based upon the required depth of penetration required to achieve the resulting perforation desired.
Regarding Claim 5, Casmiro does not expressly teach wherein the pusher plate locks the single element into place when the length of the note capacity area is reached preventing the notes from being removed from the at least one media cassette without destruction of the notes.
Regarding Claim 5, Casmiro does not expressly teach, but Sauer teaches wherein the pusher plate (13, 17, 18) locks the single element (1) into place when the length of the note capacity area is reached preventing the notes from being removed from the at least one media cassette without destruction of the notes, noting that it is construed to be well within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan to have caused the travel of the single element and paper drill to be stopped such that the paper drill remains within the punched holes within the bundle/stack of banknotes, since the travel of the paper drill already at least traverses the thickness of the bundle and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized through reason and it is merely a matter of design choice as to which length is required based on the desired outcome.
Regarding Claim 6, Casmiro does not expressly teach wherein the note destruction apparatus comprises a first element and a second element, wherein the first element is urged down from a top of the notes toward a center of the notes while the second element is urged up from the bottom of the notes toward the center of the notes.
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.
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Casmiro does not expressly teach, but Sauer teaches wherein the note destruction apparatus comprises a first element, i.e., paper drill (19) and a second element (19), wherein the first element (19) is urged down from a top of the notes toward a center of the notes while the second element (19) is urged up from the bottom of the notes toward the center of the notes.
Note that it is considered a matter of design choice to have duplicated the first element/paper drill on the opposing side so that both paper drill sets operate to puncture the banknote stack/bundle since it is merely a duplication of the first paper drill set and one of ordinary skill would have recognized through logic and reason that having both paper drill sets puncturing the bundle would have doubled the puncturing capacity of the system, for example.
Regarding Claim 7, Casmiro does not expressly teach wherein the first and second elements comprise a metal blade, knife, or serrated blade.
Regarding Claim 7, Casmiro does not expressly teach, but Sauer teaches wherein the first and second elements (19) comprise a metal blade, knife, or serrated blade, noting that the paper drill (19) is construed to at least be a metal blade because of its hollow nature which acts to cut and punch out circular holes and hole material, as mentioned in paragraph 10, for example.
Regarding Claim 8, official notice is taken that it is obvious to have included an uninterrupted power supply to supply power to motors and heaters associated with the note destruction apparatus when external power is lost to a host media terminal associated with the media recycler of (the) dispenser, since all of Casimiro’s media recycler/dispenser (SST) is taught to include “any form of a power source” as mentioned in paragraph 30.
Regarding Claim 9, Casimiro teaches wherein the at least one media recycler or dispenser, i.e., cassettes (131), is a peripheral device of an automated teller machine (SST), a self service terminal or a point of sale terminal, as illustrated in figure 1, since the cassettes (131) are removable from the automated teller machine (SST) and can be construed to meet the definition of a peripheral.
Regarding Claim 10, see the rejection of Claim 9, above.
Regarding Claim 11, see the rejection of Claim 1, above, noting that Sauer’s cylinder is construed to be a motor.
Regarding Claim 12, see the rejection of Claims 1 and 2, above.
Regarding Claim 13, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 14, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 15, see the rejection of Claims 5 and 6, above.
Regarding Claim 16, see the rejection of Claim 7, above.
Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claims 1, 5 and 6, above.
Regarding Claim 18, see the rejection of Claims 1, 5 and 6, above.
Regarding Claim 19, see the rejection of Claim 1, noting that Casimiro teaches triggering a note destruction apparatus internal to the media cassette, i.e., ink dispensing device (131a) as illustrated in figure 2, for example.
Regarding Claim 19, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to have provided Saurer’s punch device and to have actuated Sauer’s punch device along with the ink device of Casimiro for the purpose of creating extra banknote destruction for added security.
Regarding Claim 20, official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to have actuated the ink and punch device as taught by Sauer and Casimiro for the purpose of ensuring that a breach where the cassettes are removed are recognized as a breach requiring destruction of the banknotes inside.
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.
Regarding Claim 1, Richardson is cited as teaching
a note destruction apparatus comprising pins, i.e., hollow punches (20), guided in barrel (22) with cutting end (24) driven through a batch of banknotes (44) as illustrated in figure 6, that when activated is driven through or into the notes and destroys the notes, as illustrated in figures 3 and 6, for example.
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
January 24, 2026