DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 2
Allowable Subject Matter 18
Conclusion 19
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 .
This action is responsive to applicant’s claim set received on 9/29/23. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1, 2-3, 11, 15, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (US 7,167,604 B2) in view of Walker et al (US 2008/0130070 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Allen teaches a valuable media item scanner (see abstract; scanning and includes an image sensor), comprising: a printed circuit board (PCB) comprising a processor and firmware executed by the processor (see col. 5, lines 1-11; The data transfer circuitry is connected to scan device memory 50 and to an image processing capability, which may be an ASIC 52, a digital signal process (DSP), or a general purpose processor); optical tracking sensors connected to the PCB (see col. 5, lines 10-40; a pair of navigation sensors 56 and 58. In FIG. 1, the sensors are on the side of the scan device 12 that faces the document 10); contact image sensors (CISs) connected to the PCB (see col. 5, lines 10-40; contact image sensor); and the firmware when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform operations comprising (see abstract; controlling scanning operations): along with media item movement data provided by the optical tracking sensors (see abstract; A scanning system includes a scanner accessory which is operationally supported by a wider-purpose wireless handheld communications device. The communications device may be a personal digital assistant (PDA), a cellular phone, a combined PDA/cellular phone, or a similar device that enables wireless communications. The scanner accessory is adapted for freehand scanning and includes an image sensor, at least one navigator, and data transfer circuitry that is compatible with exchanging information with the communications device, including outgoing captured image information and incoming scan control information for controlling scanning operations by the scan accessory. Simultaneous with capturing image information by the image sensor, the navigator tracks the position of the image sensor relative to a document being scanned, so that the image information can be "position-tagged" to form an electronic image for display at the communications device. Alternatively, the scanning capability can be integrated into the wireless handheld communications device). Allen does not teach expressly dynamically assembling a front surface image and a back surface image of a media item passed through a tube using image frames provided from the CISs; providing the front surface image and the back surface image to a media handling device for a media operation being processed on a transaction terminal associated with the media item.
Walker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches dynamically assembling a front surface image and a back surface image of a media item passed through a tube using image frames provided from the CISs (see 0035, 0033, 0005, 0038; According to the invention, the unit 10 is capable of scanning both sides of a check or ID card as it is transported between the base 10a and cover 10b by a transport mechanism to be described. Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the base 10a mounts a contact image scanner (CIS) 40 and the cover 10b mounts a substantially similar CIS 42 so that both sides of a document 14 or ID card 16 can be scanned in a single pass through the unit… In the illustrated embodiment, the unit define two scan regions. A check 14 is intended to be read in a right-justified region (as viewed in FIG. 2) of the scanner/imager 10. The rigid ID card 16 is intended to be read in a left-justified region of the scanner. In accordance with this feature, an input slot, indicated generally by the reference character 20 is defined between the cover 10b and the base 10a.); providing the front surface image and the back surface image to a media handling device for a media operation being processed on a transaction terminal associated with the media item (see 0008, 0009; The disclosed apparatus or machine can provide for the remote, automatic, deposit of a check to a bank electronically. Electronic image data can be created from the inserted document(s), and, forwarded for processing, authenticating, printing, etc. Preferably, the machine connects to a host through a USB, or alternatively through an ethernet interface. The host may be an on-line service or the regional office of a franchise, or the bank itself. The apparatus can forward ID and/or check images to the host when requested, or, optionally, it can directly forward data to a hub-connected printer. In addition the apparatus can identify inserted documents, detect and report scan errors, re-scan documents as necessary, store image data, and, return documents to the operator. It is feasible to combine the apparatus electrically and mechanically with an auto-feeder at the front and a document sorter to handle documents in volume. Alternatively, the unit can incorporate through its optional com-ports, peripherals such as a pin-pad, a keypad and/or a signature-pad.[0009] Mechanically, the enclosed mechanism has optional mounting configurations available to the user: in a cradle, mounted on edge, on the wall, and, with alternative independent, paper-paths available. This machine can be a vital part of an improved system to receive presented checks for payment in a store, verify their authenticity, and, then instantly, and electronically deposit the checks in the store's bank. Efficiency is improved; fraud is reduced.).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Walker. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance scanning of documents and improve efficiency (see 0004, 0009). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Allen, while the teaching of Walker continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claims 2-3, Allen with Walker teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Allen with Walker does not teach expressly a housing to encase or to include the PCB, the optical tracking sensors, and the C within the housing, wherein the housing further includes a media infeed slot connected to the tube, and a media outfeed slot connected to the tube; a first CIS and a second 0IS situated on opposing sides of the tube to define a scanline within the tube.
Walker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a housing to encase or to include the PCB, the optical tracking sensors, and the C within the housing, wherein the housing further includes a media infeed slot connected to the tube, and a media outfeed slot connected to the tube (see 0005, 0033, 0038, 0060); a first CIS and a second 0IS situated on opposing sides of the tube to define a scanline within the tube (see 0035).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen with Walker to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Walker. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance scanning of documents and improve efficiency (see 0004, 0009). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Allen with Walker, while the teaching of Walker continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 11, Allen teaches a transaction terminal, comprising: a media handling device comprising a valuable media item scanner (see abstract; scanning and includes an image sensor); the valuable media item scanner comprising: a processor (see col. 5, lines 1-11; The data transfer circuitry is connected to scan device memory 50 and to an image processing capability, which may be an ASIC 52, a digital signal process (DSP), or a general purpose processor), optical tracking sensors (see col. 5, lines 10-40; a pair of navigation sensors 56 and 58. In FIG. 1, the sensors are on the side of the scan device 12 that faces the document 10); and contact image sensors (CISs) (see col. 5, lines 10-40; contact image sensor); wherein the processor is configured to use movement data obtained from the optical tracking sensors (see abstract; A scanning system includes a scanner accessory which is operationally supported by a wider-purpose wireless handheld communications device. The communications device may be a personal digital assistant (PDA), a cellular phone, a combined PDA/cellular phone, or a similar device that enables wireless communications. The scanner accessory is adapted for freehand scanning and includes an image sensor, at least one navigator, and data transfer circuitry that is compatible with exchanging information with the communications device, including outgoing captured image information and incoming scan control information for controlling scanning operations by the scan accessory. Simultaneous with capturing image information by the image sensor, the navigator tracks the position of the image sensor relative to a document being scanned, so that the image information can be "position-tagged" to form an electronic image for display at the communications device. Alternatively, the scanning capability can be integrated into the wireless handheld communications device). Allen does not teach for a media item passing through a tube and image frames obtained from the CISs of the media item passing through the tube to dynamically assemble a final front surface image and a final back surface image of the media item, and wherein the processor is further configured to provide the final front surface image and the final back surface image of the media item to the media handling device during a media operation being processed by the transaction terminal.
Walker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches for a media item passing through a tube and image frames obtained from the CISs of the media item passing through the tube to dynamically assemble a final front surface image and a final back surface image of the media item (see 0035, 0033, 0005, 0038; According to the invention, the unit 10 is capable of scanning both sides of a check or ID card as it is transported between the base 10a and cover 10b by a transport mechanism to be described. Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the base 10a mounts a contact image scanner (CIS) 40 and the cover 10b mounts a substantially similar CIS 42 so that both sides of a document 14 or ID card 16 can be scanned in a single pass through the unit… In the illustrated embodiment, the unit define two scan regions. A check 14 is intended to be read in a right-justified region (as viewed in FIG. 2) of the scanner/imager 10. The rigid ID card 16 is intended to be read in a left-justified region of the scanner. In accordance with this feature, an input slot, indicated generally by the reference character 20 is defined between the cover 10b and the base 10a.), and wherein the processor is further configured to provide the final front surface image and the final back surface image of the media item to the media handling device during a media operation being processed by the transaction terminal (see 0008, 0009; The disclosed apparatus or machine can provide for the remote, automatic, deposit of a check to a bank electronically. Electronic image data can be created from the inserted document(s), and, forwarded for processing, authenticating, printing, etc. Preferably, the machine connects to a host through a USB, or alternatively through an ethernet interface. The host may be an on-line service or the regional office of a franchise, or the bank itself. The apparatus can forward ID and/or check images to the host when requested, or, optionally, it can directly forward data to a hub-connected printer. In addition the apparatus can identify inserted documents, detect and report scan errors, re-scan documents as necessary, store image data, and, return documents to the operator. It is feasible to combine the apparatus electrically and mechanically with an auto-feeder at the front and a document sorter to handle documents in volume. Alternatively, the unit can incorporate through its optional com-ports, peripherals such as a pin-pad, a keypad and/or a signature-pad.[0009] Mechanically, the enclosed mechanism has optional mounting configurations available to the user: in a cradle, mounted on edge, on the wall, and, with alternative independent, paper-paths available. This machine can be a vital part of an improved system to receive presented checks for payment in a store, verify their authenticity, and, then instantly, and electronically deposit the checks in the store's bank. Efficiency is improved; fraud is reduced.).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Walker. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance scanning of documents and improve efficiency (see 0004, 0009). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Allen, while the teaching of Walker continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claims 15, 17, Allen with Walker teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Allen with Walker does not teach expressly an infeed slot to receive the media item and outfeed slot to eject the media item, wherein the infeed slot is connected to a first end of the tube and the outfeed slot is connected to a second end of the tube, wherein a customer associated with the media operation inserts a leading edge of the media item into the infeed slot and pushes the media item through the tube out the outfeed slot; a first CIS and a second CIS, the first CIS is situated on a first side of the tube and the second CIS is situated on a second and opposing side of the tube.
Walker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an infeed slot to receive the media item and outfeed slot to eject the media item, wherein the infeed slot is connected to a first end of the tube and the outfeed slot is connected to a second end of the tube, wherein a customer associated with the media operation inserts a leading edge of the media item into the infeed slot and pushes the media item through the tube out the outfeed slot (see 0033, 0038, 0060); a first CIS and a second CIS, the first CIS is situated on a first side of the tube and the second CIS is situated on a second and opposing side of the tube (see 0035, 0058).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen with Walker to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Walker. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance scanning of documents and improve efficiency (see 0004, 0009). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Allen with Walker, while the teaching of Walker continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 19, Allen teaches a method of operating a valuable media item scanner (see abstract; scanning and includes an image sensor), comprising: wherein the movement data is received from optical tracking sensors situated along the tube (see abstract; A scanning system includes a scanner accessory which is operationally supported by a wider-purpose wireless handheld communications device. The communications device may be a personal digital assistant (PDA), a cellular phone, a combined PDA/cellular phone, or a similar device that enables wireless communications. The scanner accessory is adapted for freehand scanning and includes an image sensor, at least one navigator, and data transfer circuitry that is compatible with exchanging information with the communications device, including outgoing captured image information and incoming scan control information for controlling scanning operations by the scan accessory. Simultaneous with capturing image information by the image sensor, the navigator tracks the position of the image sensor relative to a document being scanned, so that the image information can be "position-tagged" to form an electronic image for display at the communications device. Alternatively, the scanning capability can be integrated into the wireless handheld communications device). Allen does not teach receiving movement data for a media item pushed through a tube of the valuable media item scanner by a customer; receiving front image frames from a front contact image sensor (CIS) situated along the tube and back image frames from a back CIS as portions of the media item pass between the front CIS and the back CIS while being pushed by the customer through the tube; using the movement data to dynamically assemble the front image frames into a final front surface image of the media item and to dynamically assemble the back image frames into a final back surface image of the media item; and providing the final front surface image and the final back surface image to a media handling device for processing a media operation associated with the media item on a transaction terminal.
Walker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving movement data for a media item pushed through a tube of the valuable media item scanner by a customer (see 0034); receiving front image frames from a front contact image sensor (CIS) situated along the tube and back image frames from a back CIS as portions of the media item pass between the front CIS and the back CIS while being pushed by the customer through the tube (see 0035, 0038-0040); using the movement data to dynamically assemble the front image frames into a final front surface image of the media item and to dynamically assemble the back image frames into a final back surface image of the media item (see 0035, 0033, 0005, 0038; According to the invention, the unit 10 is capable of scanning both sides of a check or ID card as it is transported between the base 10a and cover 10b by a transport mechanism to be described. Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the base 10a mounts a contact image scanner (CIS) 40 and the cover 10b mounts a substantially similar CIS 42 so that both sides of a document 14 or ID card 16 can be scanned in a single pass through the unit… In the illustrated embodiment, the unit define two scan regions. A check 14 is intended to be read in a right-justified region (as viewed in FIG. 2) of the scanner/imager 10. The rigid ID card 16 is intended to be read in a left-justified region of the scanner. In accordance with this feature, an input slot, indicated generally by the reference character 20 is defined between the cover 10b and the base 10a.); and providing the final front surface image and the final back surface image to a media handling device for processing a media operation associated with the media item on a transaction terminal (see 0008, 0009; The disclosed apparatus or machine can provide for the remote, automatic, deposit of a check to a bank electronically. Electronic image data can be created from the inserted document(s), and, forwarded for processing, authenticating, printing, etc. Preferably, the machine connects to a host through a USB, or alternatively through an ethernet interface. The host may be an on-line service or the regional office of a franchise, or the bank itself. The apparatus can forward ID and/or check images to the host when requested, or, optionally, it can directly forward data to a hub-connected printer. In addition the apparatus can identify inserted documents, detect and report scan errors, re-scan documents as necessary, store image data, and, return documents to the operator. It is feasible to combine the apparatus electrically and mechanically with an auto-feeder at the front and a document sorter to handle documents in volume. Alternatively, the unit can incorporate through its optional com-ports, peripherals such as a pin-pad, a keypad and/or a signature-pad.[0009] Mechanically, the enclosed mechanism has optional mounting configurations available to the user: in a cradle, mounted on edge, on the wall, and, with alternative independent, paper-paths available. This machine can be a vital part of an improved system to receive presented checks for payment in a store, verify their authenticity, and, then instantly, and electronically deposit the checks in the store's bank. Efficiency is improved; fraud is reduced.).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Walker. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance scanning of documents and improve efficiency (see 0004, 0009). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Allen, while the teaching of Walker continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 12-14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (US 7,167,604 B2) with Walker et al (US 2008/0130070 A1), and further in view of Prasad (US 9,779,392 B1).
Regarding claims 12-14, Allen with Walker teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 11. Allen with Walker does not teach expressly modify the final front surface image and the final back surface image before providing to the media handling device by processing one or more of deskewing operations and image quality adjustment operations on the final front surface image and the final back surface image; process optical character recognition (OCR) operations on the final front surface image and provide media item details obtained from the OCR operations to the media handling device; process magnetic ink character recognition (MICR) operations on the final front surface image and provide MICR data obtained from the MICR operations to the media handling device.
Prasad, in the same field of endeavor, teaches modify the final front surface image and the final back surface image before providing to the media handling device by processing one or more of deskewing operations and image quality adjustment operations on the final front surface image and the final back surface image (see col. 15-16); process optical character recognition (OCR) operations on the final front surface image and provide media item details obtained from the OCR operations to the media handling device (see col. 16); process magnetic ink character recognition (MICR) operations on the final front surface image and provide MICR data obtained from the MICR operations to the media handling device (see col. 15-16).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen with Walker to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Prasad. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the document is suitable for more processing (see col. 15, lines 1-30). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Allen with Walker, while the teaching of Prasad continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 20, Allen with Walker teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 19. Allen with Walker does not teach expressly modifying the final front surface image and the final back surface image by processing deskewing or image quality adjustment operations on the final front surface image and the final back surface image before providing the final front surface image and the final back surface image to the media handling device.
Prasad, in the same field of endeavor, teaches modifying the final front surface image and the final back surface image by processing deskewing or image quality adjustment operations on the final front surface image and the final back surface image before providing the final front surface image and the final back surface image to the media handling device (see col. 15-16).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen with Walker to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Prasad. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the document is suitable for more processing (see col. 15, lines 1-30). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Allen with Walker, while the teaching of Prasad continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (US 7,167,604 B2) with Walker et al (US 2008/0130070 A1), and further in view of Parks (US 5,477,237).
Regarding claim 7, Allen with Walker teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Allen with Walker does not teach lateral x, y, and rotational yaw data for the media item.
Parks, in the same field of endeavor, teaches lateral x, y, and rotational yaw data for the media item (see abstract).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen with Walker to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Parks. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more accurate indication of the position of the device (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Allen with Walker, while the teaching of Parks continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (US 7,167,604 B2) with Walker et al (US 2008/0130070 A1), and further in view of Hadgis et al (US 6,075,622).
Regarding claim 8, Allen with Walker teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Allen with Walker does not teach simultaneously dynamically assembling the front surface image and the back surface image.
Hadgis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches simultaneously dynamically assembling the front surface image and the back surface image (see fig. 1, 5, 6, col. 1-2).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen with Walker to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Hadgis. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance efficiency of the imaging (see col. 1-2). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Allen with Walker, while the teaching of Hadgis continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (US 7,167,604 B2) with Walker et al (US 2008/0130070 A1), and further in view of Csulits (US 2012/0150745 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Allen with Walker teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Allen with Walker does not teach assembling each portion of the front surface image and each portion of the back surface image within a memory buffer of the PCB.
Csulits, in the same field of endeavor, teaches assembling each portion of the front surface image and each portion of the back surface image within a memory buffer of the PCB (see 0005, 0008, 0055-0057, 0174-0175).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen with Walker to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Csulits. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance efficiency of the imaging (see col. 1-2). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Allen with Walker, while the teaching of Csulits continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (US 7,167,604 B2) with Walker et al (US 2008/0130070 A1), and further in view of Taylor (US 2005/0205661 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Allen with Walker teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Allen with Walker does not teach an automated teller machine, a point-of-sale terminal, or a self-service terminal.
Taylor, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an automated teller machine, a point-of-sale terminal, or a self-service terminal (see 0001, 0028).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allen with Walker to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Taylor. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the deposit of cheques (see 0001). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Allen with Walker, while the teaching of Taylor continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 10, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4-6, none of the references of record alone or in combination suggest or fairly teach wherein wherein the optical tracking sensors include a first pair of optical tracking sensors, the first pair horizontally aligned and situated vertically above the scanline along the tube.
Regarding claim 10, none of the references of record alone or in combination suggest or fairly teach wherein wherein the firmware associated with the providing further includes deskewing the front surface image and the back surface image from the memory buffer and provide a deskewed front surface image and a deskewed back surface image for the media item to the media handling device.
Regarding claim 16, none of the references of record alone or in combination suggest or fairly teach wherein media item scanner lacks any electromechanical components to control and to urge the media item through the tube.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights