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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14 and 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/4/26.
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 13 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 13, line 2, the phrase “when the lower housing is not a safe” is unclear and indefinite. It is not clear what is meant by a safe versus not a safe as well as what elements differentiate between a safe and not a safe.
Regarding Claim 13, line 6, the phrase “the safe housing the lower module are aligned with each other” is unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fraser et al (US 11,328,563 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fraser discloses
a money handling apparatus, i.e., system (100), as illustrated in figure 1, comprising:
an upper module, i.e., any one of front transport (122), bill validator (123), vertical transport (124), escrow (125) or exception transport (126), comprising an upper transport section, i.e., any one of the transport modules (122, 123, 124, 125 or 126), for transporting money, i.e., bills of various denomination as mentioned at col. 4, lines 52-63, for example; and
a lower module, i.e., intermediary media transport (129c), comprising a lower transport section for transporting the money, noting that the intermediate media transport (129c) transports bills/banknotes to cash cassettes (131), and noting the directional arrows through (129c) and into cash cassettes (131) as illustrated in figure 1, for example,
wherein a middle transport module, i.e., any one of horizontal transport (128), transport intersection (129a) or unload infeed (129b) as illustrated in figure 1, comprising a middle transport section, i.e., transport intersection (129a), for transporting the money between a first end to be connected to an end of the upper transport section (122-126) and a second end to be connected to an end of the lower transport section (129c) is selectively attached to the lower module (129c) to place the end of the upper transport section (122-126) and the end of the lower transport section (129c) in one of a plurality of different positional relationships between the ends of the upper (122-126) and lower transport (129c) sections to enable transporting of the money between the upper transport section (122-126) and the lower transport section (129c).
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) 2-6, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser et al (US 11,328,563 B1) in view of Togiya (US 2012/0255829 A1).
Regarding Claims 2-6, 10 and 12, Fraser teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 2, Fraser does not expressly teach
wherein:
the lower module further comprises a lower frame to which the lower transport section is attached; and
the middle transport module is attached and fixed to the lower frame.
Regarding Claim 2, Fraser does not expressly teach, but Togiya teaches
wherein:
the lower module, i.e., lower unit (2), as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at paragraphs 36 and 37, further comprises a lower frame, i.e., cassette loading frame (4), to which the lower transport section, i.e., the branch conveying paths within each of cassettes (5-9), is attached; and
the middle transport module, i.e., conveying path (3, 36), is attached and fixed to the lower frame (4), noting support points/hinges (31,32) as mentioned at paragraph 42 and as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, for example.
Regarding Claim 2, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein:
the lower module further comprises a lower frame to which the lower transport section is attached; and
the middle transport module is attached and fixed to the lower frame, as taught by Togiya, in Fraser’s money handling apparatus, for the purpose of providing structure and rigidity to Fraser’s disclosed apparatus, while also enabling the entire module to be easily accessed by maintenance personnel.
Regarding Claim 3, Fraser does not expressly teach wherein the lower module further comprises a movement mechanism for moving the lower frame with the lower transport section and the middle transport module attached thereto.
Regarding Claim 3, Fraser does not expressly teach, but Togiya teaches wherein the lower module (2) further comprises a movement mechanism, i.e., a drawer mechanism in the form of a sliding rail as mentioned at paragraph 38, for moving the lower frame (4) with the lower transport section, i.e., the branch conveying paths within each of cassettes (5-9), and the middle transport module (3, 36) attached thereto, as illustrated in figures 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 4, Fraser does not expressly teach further comprising:
a lower housing for housing the lower frame inside, the lower frame being with the lower transport section and the middle transport module attached thereto.
Regarding Claim 4, Fraser does not expressly teach, but Togiya teaches further comprising:
a lower housing, i.e., the lower part of the apparatus under the upper housing (1), as illustrated in figure 1, for housing the lower frame inside, the lower frame (4) being with the lower transport section, i.e., the branch conveying paths within each of cassettes (5-9), and the middle transport module (3, 36) attached thereto, as illustrated in annotated figure 1, below.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Fraser does not expressly teach wherein the middle transport module is attached to the lower frame from above.
Regarding Claim 5, Fraser does not expressly teach wherein the middle transport module (3, 36) is attached to the lower frame (4) from above, as illustrated in figure 2, noting the supports/hinges (31, 32).
Regarding Claim 6, Fraser does not expressly teach wherein:
the middle transport module comprises a middle frame to which the middle transport section is attached; and
the middle transport module is fixed to the lower module by attaching the middle frame to the lower frame.
Regarding Claim 6, see the rejection of Claims 2-5, above.
Regarding Claim 10, Fraser does not expressly teach wherein
the middle frame comprises a protrusion, and is positioned by engaging the protrusion with a slit of the lower frame.
Regarding Claim 10, Fraser does not expressly teach, but Togiya teaches
wherein the middle frame (36) comprises a protrusion (43, 44), and is positioned by engaging the protrusion with a slit (42, 41) of the lower frame, i.e., interpreted as the top portion of cassettes such as cassette (6), as mentioned at paragraphs 43 and 44 and as illustrated in figures 4 and 5, or protrusion i.e., relief holes (81a-81d) that interfaces slits (85-88) in the lower frame side (4b), as mentioned at paragraph 57 and as illustrated in figure 9, for example.
Regarding Claim 12, Fraser does not expressly teach
wherein the middle transport module is exposed when the lower frame is pulled out by the movement mechanism.
Regarding Claim 12, Fraser does not expressly teach, but Togiya teaches
wherein the middle transport module (3, 36) is exposed when the lower frame (4) is pulled out by the movement mechanism, i.e., the slide rail (110), as mentioned at paragraphs 64 and 72 and as illustrated in figures 1, 11 and 13, for example.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser et al (US 11,328,563 B1) in view of Calverley et al (US 2007/0278138 A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 9, Fraser teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 7, Fraser does not expressly teach wherein
the middle transport module further comprises a motor for operating the middle transport section.
Regarding Claim 7, Fraser does not expressly teach, but Calverley teaches wherein the middle transport module, i.e., represented by the frame constructed of side plates (15a, 15b), as illustrated in figures 7, 12 and 17, further comprises a motor (200) for operating the middle transport section, as mentioned at paragraph 156, which states that “[a] hand wheel 207 is connected to the output shaft of DC motor 200. This hand wheel 207 can be used to operate the transport manually which may be useful in order to move notes to a position where they are accessible during clearance of a jam”.
Regarding Claim 7, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein
the middle transport module further comprises a motor for operating the middle transport section, as taught by Calverley, in Fraser’s money handling apparatus, for the purpose of operating the transport/conveyor automatically to move banknotes through the module by a motor.
Regarding Claim 9, Fraser does not expressly teach wherein
the middle transport module further comprises a manual movement mechanism for manually moving the money in the middle transport section.
Regarding Claim 9, Fraser does not expressly teach, but Calverley teaches wherein the middle transport module, i.e., represented by the frame constructed of side plates (15a, 15b), as illustrated in figures 7, 12 and 17, further comprises a manual movement mechanism, i.e, hand wheel (207), as illustrated in figures 7, 12 and 17, for manually moving the money in the middle transport section, as mentioned at paragraph 156.
Regarding Claim 9, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein
the middle transport module further comprises a manual movement mechanism for manually moving the money in the middle transport section, as taught by Calverley, in Fraser’s money handling apparatus, for the purpose of enabling manual operation of the transport/conveyor in the event of a jam so as move banknotes through the module manually, thus clearing the jam.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser et al (US 11,328,563 B1) in view of Kikuchi (US 2021/0272408 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Fraser teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 8, Fraser does not expressly teach wherein
the middle transport module further comprises a detection section for detecting the money transported by the middle transport section.
Regarding Claim 8, Fraser does not expressly teach, but Kikuchi teaches wherein the middle transport module, i.e., conveyance section (150), as illustrated in figure 2, for example, further comprises a detection section, i.e., detection sensors, including storage passage sensors (SP1-SP5), as mentioned at paragraphs 24-28 and 56, for example, for detecting the money transported by the middle transport section, as illustrated in figures 2 and 7, for example.
Regarding Claim 8, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein
the middle transport module further comprises a detection section for detecting the money transported by the middle transport section, as taught by Kikuchi, in Fraser’s money handling apparatus, for the purpose of detecting anomalies such as a jam, as well as to determine progress of the banknotes through the conveyance passages to the storage cassettes.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser et al (US 11,328,563 B1) in view of Togiya (US 2012/0255829 A1) and further in view of Koga et al (US 10,275,974 B2).
Regarding Claims 11 and 13, Fraser teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 11, Fraser does not expressly teach
wherein among a plurality of the middle transport modules having different positional relationships between the first end and the second end, a middle transport module having a configuration such that positions of the end of the upper transport section and the first end match each other and positions of the end of the lower transport section and the second end match each other is selectively attached to place the end of the upper transport section and the end of the lower transport section in one of the plurality of different positional relationships between the ends to enable the transporting of the money between the upper transport section and the lower transport section.
Regarding Claim 11, Fraser does not expressly teach, but Koga teaches a base module (11) and extension modules (12-19), as illustrated in figures 2, 5 and 11-15, which all illustrate the interchangeability and interoperability of all modules with each other.
Regarding Claim 11, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein among a plurality of the middle transport modules having different positional relationships between the first end and the second end, a middle transport module having a configuration such that positions of the end of the upper transport section and the first end match each other and positions of the end of the lower transport section and the second end match each other is selectively attached to place the end of the upper transport section and the end of the lower transport section in one of the plurality of different positional relationships between the ends to enable the transporting of the money between the upper transport section and the lower transport section, as taught by Koga, in Fraser’s money handling apparatus, for the purpose of providing module structure to Fraser’s middle transport module, upper module and lower module, so as to maintain interchangeability and expandability so as to increase flexibility of use of Fraser’s money handling apparatus module components, noting also that it would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to have omitted one of the modules such as the middle transport module where the remaining upper and lower module remain functional.
Therefore, regarding Claim 11, it would have been obvious to have used Togiya’s teaching of a lower housing/safe, middle transport module, and upper module with a safe that holds storage cassettes that are removable, Koga’s teaching of interchangeable modules, and Fraser’s teaching of upper, lower and middle modules since Togiya’s, Koga’s and Fraser’s devices have predictable structure and function and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the efficacy and synergy of the combination based upon the references' teachings as well as common sense, logic and reason.
Regarding Claim 13, Fraser does not expressly teach
wherein:
when the lower housing is not a safe, the middle transport module is not attached, and a front surface of the upper module and a front surface of the lower module are aligned with each other; and
when the lower housing is a safe, the middle transport module is attached, and the front surface of the upper module and a front surface of the safe housing the lower module are aligned with each other.
Regarding Claim 13, Fraser does not expressly teach, but Togiya teaches
when the lower housing (4) is a safe, the middle transport module (3, 36) is attached, and the front surface of the upper module, i.e., the upper unit (1), and a front surface of the safe housing the lower module are aligned with each other, as illustrated in figure 1, for example.
Note that it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill n the art. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding Claim 13, Fraser does not expressly teach, but Koga teaches a base module (11) and extension modules (12-19), as illustrated in figures 2, 5 and 11-15, which all illustrate the interchangeability and interoperability of all modules with each other.
Regarding Claim 13, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein:
when the lower housing is not a safe, the middle transport module is not attached, and a front surface of the upper module and a front surface of the lower module are aligned with each other, as taught by Koga, in Fraser’s money handling apparatus, for the purpose of providing module structure to Fraser’s middle transport module, upper module and lower module, so as to maintain interchangeability and expandability so as to increase flexibility of use of Fraser’s money handling apparatus module components, noting also that it would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to have omitted one of the modules such as the middle transport module where the remaining upper and lower module remain functional.
Therefore, regarding Claim 13, it would have been obvious to have used Togiya’s teaching of a lower housing/safe, middle transport module, and upper module with a safe that holds storage cassettes that are removable, Koga’s teaching of interchangeable modules, and Fraser’s teaching of upper, lower and middle modules since Togiya’s, Koga’s and Fraser’s devices have predictable structure and function and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the efficacy and synergy of the combination based upon the references' teachings as well as common sense, logic and reason.
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.
Chou ‘805 is cited as teaching a frame/chassis (300), as illustrated in figure 2, for example.
Park ‘404 is cited as teaching an external storage cassette (400), an upper module (100), a middle module (360) and a lower module (200), as illustrated in figure 1, for example.
Wakabayashi ‘645 is cited as teaching an upper module (10 U), a middle module (22, 23) and a lower module (25a-25d), as illustrated in figure 2, 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
July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights