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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
“a coin change machine” in Claim 1, line 2.
“a bill change machine” in Claim 1, line 6.
“a change calculation component” in Claim 1, line 10.
“a first determination component” in Claim 1, line 14.
“a second determination component” in Claim 1, line 18.
“a change component” in Claim 1, line 21.
“a confirmation component” in Claim 3, line 2.
“a reference denomination storage component” in Claim 5, line 3.
“a determination component” in Claim 5, line 5.
“a registration component” in Claim 6, line 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “change component” is nowhere mentioned in the specification or the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “determination component” in line 5, nowhere mentioned in the specification or the disclosure.
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 1-20 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 1, lines 14 and 18, mention the limitations “a first determination component” and “a second determination component”.
Regarding Claim 5, line 5 mentions the limitation “a determination component”. It is not clear what the difference is between the first and second components and the determination component.
See also Claims 14 and 18, which mention similar limitations.
Regarding Claim 8, lines 11, 14, 18, 24 it is not clear what element is performing the steps of calculating in line 11, determining in line 14, determining in line 18, outputting in line 24. Are these steps being performed manually? It appears from the specification and disclosure that elements of the apparatus is performing them, however, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, they could be construed to be performed manually.
See also Claims 9-13 which have similar issues with these or other steps.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-9, 13-15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (US 2019/0180550 A1) in view of Weston et al (US 5,542,519) and further in view of Daout et al (US 2004/0093117 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishida teaches
a self-checkout apparatus, i.e., POS register (20), change machine (30), including coin handling unit (50) and banknote handling unit (40), as illustrated in figures 7 and 8, comprising:
a coin change machine, i.e., coin handling unit (50), configured to store deposited coins and dispense the stored coins as change and output
coin amount information relating to an amount of coins
deposited in one transaction, as mentioned at paragraphs 84-86, 91-97, for example;
a bill change machine, i.e., banknote handling machine (40), configured to store deposited bills and dispense the stored bills as change and output
bill amount information relating to an amount of bills
deposited in one transaction, as mentioned in paragraphs 86 and 88-91;
a change calculation component configured to calculate
a change amount based on a purchase amount of a commodity
and the output coin amount information and the output bill
amount information, i.e., POS control unit (26) including purchased commodity registration unit (26a), pre-deposit amount acquisition unit (26b), checkout amount calculation unit (26c) and checkout processing unit (26d), as mentioned in paragraphs 75 and 78-84, for example;
a first determination component, i.e., POS control unit (26), configured to determine whether the amount of coins included in the coin amount information input from the coin change machine (50) is equal to or more than an amount of a minimum amount bill, as mentioned at paragraphs 90-91, 92 and 94-97, 109-111, 149-154 and 175-185, for example;
a second determination component, i.e., checkout amount calculation unit (26c), as mentioned at paragraphs 78, 81, 82, 149-151, 182 and 183 for example, configured to determine whether the calculated change amount is equal to or more than the amount of the minimum amount bill.
Regarding Claim 1, Nishida does not expressly teach,
a change component, configured to,
if the first determination component determines that the amount of the
coins is equal to or more than the amount of the minimum
amount bill and the second determination component
determines that the change amount is equal to or more than
the amount of the minimum amount bill, output, to the coin
change machine, a coin dispensing signal to dispense, with coins, an amount not exceeding the amount of the deposited
coins and equal to or more than the amount of the minimum
amount bill in the change amount.
Regarding Claim 1, Nishida does not expressly teach, but Weston teaches
a change component, i.e., coin handling apparatus (2) with dispenser (28), as mentioned in col. 4, lines 19-25 and 39-41 and as illustrated in figure 1, configured to, if the first determination component determines that the amount of the coins is equal to or more than the amount of the minimum amount bill, i.e., noting step (308) of figure 3, as mentioned at col. 6, lines 29-32, i.e., “[o]therwise, the program proceeds to step 308, where it determines whether the current change calculation consists only of coins of the lowest value” and “[i]f so, then no better combination can be found, and the routine ends at step 307”, and the second determination component determines that the change amount is equal to or more than the amount of the minimum amount bill, i.e., seen in steps (309) and (310) of figure 3, as mentioned at col. 6, lines 33-52, and steps (303-305) as mentioned at col. 8, lines 10-14, for example, output, to the coin
change machine, i.e., coin handling apparatus (2), a coin dispensing signal to dispense, with coins, as mentioned at col. 9, lines 19-23, an amount not exceeding the amount of the deposited coins and equal to or more than the amount of the minimum amount bill in the change amount, noting that the coins to be dispensed are necessarily less than the originally deposited cash.
Regarding Claim 1, Nishida does not expressly teach, but Daout teaches dispensing a smallest denomination rather than a larger denomination based upon insufficient supply, as mentioned at paragraph 50, for example, which states, as follows.
[0050] The result of this is to suggest that the requirement for bills of denomination j-1 is higher than the actual requirement was in the past. As a result, the threshold for the denomination j-1 is increased, so more bills of denomination j-1 are sent to the store 4. Accordingly, this will allow change to be dispensed using the smaller denomination, j-1, rather than the larger denomination j, of which there is insufficient supply.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 1, note that Daout also teaches systems handling only banknotes, only coins and combinations of coins and banknotes, as mentioned at paragraph 18, which states as follows.
[0018] Referring to FIG. 1, this shows a currency handling system 2, including a multi-denominational store 4. This arrangement will be described in the context of a banknote handling system, but is equally applicable to systems for handling coins, or a combination of banknotes and coins. The system 2 is housed in, for example, a vending machine (not shown) capable of vending multiple types of products at different prices.
Emphasis provided.
Note also that the change calculating algorithm is able to minimize the total currency items and their denominations as mentioned at paragraph 24. See also paragraphs 22-26, 54 and 69-73, which state as follows.
[0022] A dispenser 24 is controlled by the controller 18, and can dispense a banknote of any one of the selected denominations D1, D2, D3 and D4 so that it is refunded to the tray 16 (or sent to an escrow (not shown) so that it can be collected with other notes to be delivered as a stack to the tray 16 ). Obviously, this operation can be repeated so that the apparatus can dispense change of any desired total amount, formed by combinations of denominations D1 to D4.
[0023] The desired total amount to be dispensed can be calculated by the vending machine in which the apparatus 2 is housed, and the signal representing this amount be sent to the controller 18, so that the controller can calculate how many banknotes of the respective denominations should be dispensed, so that the total value dispensed is equal to the desired amount. Alternatively, the vending machine itself could perform this calculation, and issue to the controller 18 instructions as to which denomination should be dispensed. In the latter case, the controller 18 is preferably capable of sending to the vending machine signals representing whether or not individual denominations are available for dispensing, and preferably how many currency items of each denomination are available.
[0024] Various techniques are known in the prior art for determining the combination of denominations to be dispensed. Preferably, the change algorithm is capable of selecting between different combinations, each of which sums to the desired total amount. One typical way of achieving this, referred to as the "least number" method, involves using as many higher-denomination currency items as possible, so that the total number of dispensed currency items is minimised. This is intended to maximise the number of currency items retained in the store so that change remains available for the maximum number of transactions. The change algorithm used in the present embodiment may use such a technique. Preferably, however, the change calculating algorithm is operable to take into account the number of currency items of respective denominations which are currently stored, so that if certain denominations are available in plentiful quantities, they are dispensed in preference to other denominations. Such an arrangement is disclosed in EP-A-0 729 624, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
[0025] Although FIG. 1 suggests that banknotes of each of the denominations are kept together within the store, this is not essential, and indeed the physical positions of the different denominations may be intermingled, so long as the controller 18 is able to cause a selected denomination to be dispensed. The controller 18 keeps track of the number of banknotes of the respective denominations within the store 4, by counting the banknotes which have been delivered to the store via the gate 20 and/or by having one or more sensors for sensing the quantity of the different denominations in the store.
[0026] Preferably, the store 4 is manually replenished by a serviceman when the apparatus is serviced. A serviceman ensures that the store 4 contains sufficient banknotes to cope with the expected requirements for change for a number of transactions. The controller 18 can also display the number of notes of respective denominations required for replenishing by the serviceman. During the course of using the vending machine in which the apparatus 2 is housed, various banknotes will be dispensed from, and added to, those in the banknote store 4. At any given time, therefore, the banknote store 4 will contain banknotes inserted during a number of previous transactions. It would be desirable for the apparatus to be arranged so that the automatic replenishment of the banknote store 4 delivers to this store banknotes of the appropriate denominations, in the appropriate quantities, to match as far as possible the requirements for change, so that manual replenishment by a serviceman is not needed, or at least is not needed frequently.
[0054] The result of this procedure is that, over the course of a number of transactions, the proportions of the different denominations in the store 4 will tend to correspond to the average proportions of the denominations required for change. However, this tendency is modified (according to step 210 ) if one denomination is in short supply and the next-lower denomination is in plentiful supply, to increase the number of lower-denomination banknotes which can therefore be dispensed as change in preference to the higher denomination. This diminishes the requirement for the higher denomination banknotes.
[0069] In this case, the change in the threshold levels will tend to cause the proportions of the denominations to change away from the desired proportions as indicated by previous change dispensing operations. However, the result of this is that the change algorithm will tend to dispense 10's, because of the large number thereof, whereas in the past 20's would be dispensed more often. Thus, the proportions will change to match the future expected requirements, and also the expected availability of denominations for replenishment.
[0070] Many modifications to the above-described techniques are possible. For example, in steps 202 and 210 the rolling averages of received banknotes are compared with rolling averages of dispensed banknotes. Instead, the controller 18 can simply determine the rate at which the number of stored banknotes of respective denominations increases or decreases; for example, the controller may calculate for each denomination the change in the stored quantities over a predetermined number of transactions.
[0071] The above techniques disregard the relative values of the denominations, but these could instead be taken into account. For example, the calculation performed at step 212 could be arranged to modify the value rm(i+1,j-1) by a factor which is proportional to (rm(i+1,j)-em(i+1,j)), the constant of proportionality being dependent upon the relative values of the denominations j,j-1.
[0072] In the present embodiment, the controller 18 determines the desired relative proportions of the different denominations in the store 4. However, this determination can instead be carried out as part of the change-calculating algorithm. Thus, the change-calculating algorithm can take into account various factors, such as the relationship between prices and the values of respective denominations, to determine which denominations are most likely to be required for change, and this information can be used in adjusting the relative proportions of the different denominations in the store 4. Indeed, the change algorithm could be used to decide which denominations should be sent to the store, and which should be sent to the cashbox.
[0073] Various other factors can also be taken into account either in setting the initial threshold levels or in adjusting those levels. Examples of various factors which may be used are given in WO-A-94/03874, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference. One example is data indicative of the relative population levels of respective currency denominations in the area in which the apparatus is to be used.
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 a change component, configured to,
if the first determination component determines that the amount of the
coins is equal to or more than the amount of the minimum
amount bill and the second determination component
determines that the change amount is equal to or more than
the amount of the minimum amount bill, output, to the coin
change machine, a coin dispensing signal to dispense, with coins, an amount not exceeding the amount of the deposited
coins and equal to or more than the amount of the minimum
amount bill in the change amount, as taught by Weston and Daout, in Nishida’s self-checkout apparatus, for the purpose of ensuring the least number of coins are dispensed as change, thus ensuring change of sufficient supply is dispensed and the coin and banknote inventory is managed efficiently.
Regarding Claim 2, Nishida does not expressly teach
wherein
the coin amount information includes information
concerning numbers for each denomination of the coins
deposited to the coin change machine, and
the bill amount information includes information
concerning numbers for each denomination of the bills
deposited to the bill change machine.
Regarding Claim 2, Nishida does not expressly teach, but Daout teaches
wherein
the coin amount information includes information
concerning numbers for each denomination of the coins
deposited to the coin change machine, as mentioned at paragraphs 1 and 18, (mentioning both coins and banknotes and combinations thereof), 34 and 46, and
the bill amount information includes information
concerning numbers for each denomination of the bills
deposited to the bill change machine, as mentioned at paragraphs 34 and 46, and noting that paragraph 1, mentioning that both coins and banknotes are accommodated by Daout’s cash inventory management algorithm. See also paragraphs 22-26, 50, 54 and 69-73.
Regarding Claim 6, Nishida teaches
further comprising:
a registration component to optically read a code symbol of the commodity, i.e., barcode reader (22), as mentioned at paragraph 59, and as illustrated in figure 8, for example.
Regarding Claim 7, Nishida teaches
further comprising:
a display, i.e., display operation unit (21), operator display (21a) and customer display (21b), to display commodity information including at least one of a commodity name and a commodity price based on the code symbol, as mentioned at paragraphs 71, 76 and 79-81 and as illustrated in figures 7 and 8.
Regarding Claim 8, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 9, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 13, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 14, see the rejection of Claims 1 and 6, above.
Regarding Claim 15, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 19, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claim 7, above.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (US 2019/0180550 A1) in view of Weston et al (US 5,542,519) and further in view of Daout et al (US 2004/0093117 A1) and further in view of Jones et al (US 6,363,164 B1).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, 10 and 16, Nishida teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 3, Nishida, Weston and Daout teaches
if the first determination component determines that the
amount of the coins indicated by the coin amount information
is equal to or more than the amount of the minimum amount
bill and the second determination component determines that
the change amount is equal to or more than the amount of the
minimum amount bill,
as mentioned above with respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 2, above.
Regarding Claim 3, Nishida does not expressly teach
further comprising a confirmation component configured to,
confirm with a customer whether to
dispense the amount equal to or more than the amount of the
minimum amount bill as change with coins wherein
the change component outputs the coin dispensing
signal the customer confirms that the amount of money equal
to or more than the amount of the minimum amount bill is
dispensed as change with coins.
Regarding Claim 3, Nishida does not expressly teach, but Jones teaches
further comprising a confirmation component, i.e., touch screen (27) as mentioned at col. 12, lines 26-39 and as illustrated in figure 1c, display area (2404) as mentioned in col. 66, lines 23-44 and illustrated in figure 55, col. 66, line 52-col. 67, line 27 and figure 51, a control panel (2702) of figures 53a and 53b with accept key (2710), as mentioned at col. 67, lines 49-67 mentioning yes and no keys as well, touch screen (2960) as illustrated in figure 55, and as mentioned at col. 75, lines 1-14, col. 75, line 58-col. 76, line 9 and as illustrated at figures 56a-56f and as mentioned at col. 75, line 58-col. 80, line 48, and noting steps (11r and 11u), “accept count”, figure 56b, showing several choices for forms of cash to be dispensed, figure 56c, step (14a) “customer chooses to allocate”, for example,
confirm with a customer, via touch screen (27, 2702, 2960) and accept, yes and no keys (2710), for example, whether to
dispense the amount equal to or more than the amount of the
minimum amount bill as change with coins, as taught by Weston and Daout,
wherein
the change component outputs the coin dispensing
signal, as taught by Weston and Daout, the customer confirms, via touch screen (27, 2702, 2960) and accept, yes and no keys (2710), that the amount of money equal to or more than the amount of the minimum amount bill is
dispensed as change with coins, as taught by Weston and Daout.
Regarding Claim 3, 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 confirmation component configured to,
confirm with a customer whether to
dispense the amount equal to or more than the amount of the
minimum amount bill as change with coins wherein
the change component outputs the coin dispensing
signal the customer confirms that the amount of money equal
to or more than the amount of the minimum amount bill is
dispensed as change with coins, as taught by Jones, in Nishida’s self-checkout apparatus, for the purpose of enabling a customer/user the flexibility to accept the denomination combination of the dispensed coins.
Regarding Claim 10, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 16, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (US 2019/0180550 A1) in view of Weston et al (US 5,542,519) and further in view of Daout et al (US 2004/0093117 A1), further in view of Jones et al (US 6,363,164 B1) and further in view of Akamatsu et al (US 2012/0285788 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, 11 and 17, Nishida teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 4, Nishida does not expressly teach
wherein the confirmation component displays an amount and a
number for each denomination of coins dispensed to the
customer.
Regarding Claim 4, Nishida does not expressly teach, but Akamatsu teaches
wherein the confirmation component, i.e., setting unit (52) as illustrated in figure 5, displays, via display/monitor (5, 5a), as illustrated in figure 4, an amount and a number for each denomination of coins dispensed to the customer, as illustrated in figure 9, and noting the memory storage (254) as mentioned at paragraph 313, and as illustrated in figure 18.
Regarding Claim 4, 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 confirmation component displays an amount and a
number for each denomination of coins dispensed to the
customer, as taught by Akamatsu, in Nishida’s self-checkout apparatus, for the purpose of enabling pertinent data to be displayed to a customer/user.
Regarding Claim 11, see the rejection of Claim 4, above.
Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claim 4, above.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (US 2019/0180550 A1) in view of Weston et al (US 5,542,519) and further in view of Daout et al (US 2004/0093117 A1) and further in view of Okisuka et al (US 2023/0015467 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, 12 and 18, Nishida teaches the system as described above
Regarding Claim 5, Nishida does not expressly teach
further comprising:
a reference denomination storage component configured
to store a reference denomination of coins; and
a determination component configured to determine,
based on presence or absence of coins smaller in amount than
the reference denomination in the deposited coins, a
denomination of coins to be dispensed, wherein
the change component dispenses change with the
determined denomination.
Regarding Claim 5, Nishida does not expressly teach, but Okisuka teaches
further comprising:
a reference denomination storage component, i.e., interpreted as coin change machine (110) memory unit (117a), as illustrated in figure 5 and as mentioned at paragraphs 115, 118 and 119 as well as banknote change machine (210) memory unit (218a), as mentioned at paragraphs 122-127, configured
to store a reference denomination of coins, i.e., noting the mention of recognition data being stored in memory (117a) at paragraph 119; and
a determination component, i.e., interpreted as recognition unit (117b) that compares recognition information with image features of the coin, as mentioned at paragraph 119, for example, configured to determine,
based on presence or absence of coins smaller in amount than
the reference denomination in the deposited coins, as taught by Weston and Daout, a denomination of coins to be dispensed, wherein
the change component, i.e. coin change machine (110) and the banknote change machine (210) along with external apparatus (20) as mentioned at paragraph 129, for example, dispenses change with the determined denomination, as mentioned at paragraph 115, for example.
Regarding Claim 5, 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 reference denomination storage component configured
to store a reference denomination of coins; and
a determination component configured to determine,
based on presence or absence of coins smaller in amount than
the reference denomination in the deposited coins, a
denomination of coins to be dispensed, wherein
the change component dispenses change with the
determined denomination, as taught by Okisuka, in Nishida’s self-checkout apparatus, for the purpose of effectuating detection of coin and banknote denominations and dispensing proper and accurate change during purchase transactions.
Regarding Claim 12, see the rejection of Claim 5, above.
Regarding Claim 18, see the rejection of Claim 5, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saltsov ‘516 is cited as teaching using statistical data of inventory demand to instruct the system controller to change the denominations of combinations of coins and banknotes, as mentioned at paragraph 7, 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
March 4, 2026