DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims [ ] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims [ ] are directed to a method, claims [ ] are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and claims [ ] are directed to a system comprising a memory and a processor. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) [indicate the abstract idea]. Specifically, the claims recite [list the claim limitations that recite the abstract idea], which is grouped within the [“certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “mathematical concepts” and/or “mental processes”] grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)) because [explain why the claim falls within this grouping]. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as [list the technology/computer recited in the claims] [merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (pick one or both)]. Specifically, the [list the technology/computer recited in the claims] perform(s) the steps or functions of [list the steps performed by the technology/computer in the claim]. [The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (pick one or both)] does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a [list the technology/computer recited in the claims] to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of [indicate the abstract idea]. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the [list the technology/computer recited in the claims] perform(s) the steps or functions of [list the steps performed by the technology/computer]. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of [indicate the abstract idea]. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims [indicate dependent claim numbers] further describe the abstract idea of [indicate the abstract idea]. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of generally eliciting information from a document/sheet using a generic computer. Specifically, the claims recite acquiring image information of a sheet, transmitting the acquired image information and reviving a result of a character recognition apparatus and performing processing on the sheet using a result of the character recognition, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)) because eliciting data from documents and movement of said data is considered to be both a method of organizing human activity because a person might be able to perform the manual sorting of documents/sheets and a mental process because the method performs processes that can be performed mentally, and is substantially a set of mental processes that are merely performed by a generic computer. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the character recognition apparatus and the sheet processing apparatus are both recited at a high level of generality and merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the character recognition apparatus and the sheet processing apparatus perform(s) the steps or functions of acquiring image information of a sheet, transmitting the acquired image information and receiving a result of a character recognition apparatus and performing processing on the sheet using a result of the character recognition. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a character recognition apparatus and sheet processing apparatus, which are both recited at a high level of generality and substantially operate as a generic computer eliciting information to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of eliciting information from a document/sheet. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the character recognition apparatus and the sheet processing apparatus perform(s) the steps or functions of acquiring image information of a sheet, transmitting the acquired image information and reviving a result of a character recognition apparatus and performing processing on the sheet using a result of the character recognition. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of generally eliciting information from a document/sheet using a generic computer. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 further describe the abstract idea of generally eliciting information from a document/sheet using a generic computer. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, it is unclear whether the character recognition is performed in the sheet processing apparatus or outside the sheet processing apparatus, since Independent Claim 1, the parent claim of Dependent Claim 2, calls for the character recognition to be performed by a character recognition apparatus outside the sheet processing apparatus. This is the opposite of what is called for in Dependent Claim 2, i.e., “performing a character recognition in the sheet processing apparatus” thus rendering Claim 2 unclear and indefinite.
Regarding Claim 9, lines 4 and 5, the phrase “when a character recognition rate of the character recognition apparatus is equal to or more than a threshold” is unclear as the character recognition apparatus does not have a recognition rate. However, the document being scanned by the character recognition apparatus does have a recognition rate.
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) 1-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagayoshi et al (US 2004/0084521 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagayoshi discloses
a sheet processing method performed in a sheet processing
apparatus, i.e., automatic teller machine (201) as illustrated in figures 1, 2, 12, for example, the method comprising:
acquiring image information of a sheet, i.e., via bill validator (103, 1201) as illustrated in figures 1 and 12;
transmitting the acquired image information to a character
recognition apparatus, i.e., bill validator of outside (1201), as illustrated in figure 13, outside the sheet processing apparatus (201), as mentioned at step (1302) as illustrated in figure 13,
and receiving a result of character recognition performed by the
character recognition apparatus (1201) from the character recognition
apparatus (1201), i.e., noting step (1324) “transmit the result” and step (1303) “receive the result”, as illustrated in figure 13; and
performing processing on the sheet, i.e., interpreted as sorting the banknotes at steps (1309), (1310) and (1311) by using the result of
the character recognition performed by the character recognition
apparatus (1201), noting also the result being used at steps (1306, 1307, 1308) as shown in figure 13, for example.
Regarding Claim 2, Nagayoshi discloses further comprising:
performing a character recognition in the sheet processing
apparatus, i.e., via second sensor (106) as illustrated in figure 14, by using the image information, i.e., noting the step of transmitting the information (1302) and the step of transmitting the result at step (1324), in figure 13, for example, wherein the processing on the sheet is performed by using a result of the character
recognition performed by the sheet processing apparatus (201), i.e., via first sensor (105), as illustrated in figures 1 and 14, noting also the result as described in figure 4 and in figure 13, and noting that the result can be reverified via the second sensor (106) at the same time the first sensor (105) is used for sensing data of another banknote, and that the second sensor (106) can be run at a slower speed so as to increase accuracy of the imaging, i.e., at a higher resolution, as mentioned at paragraphs 62 and 63, for example, as follows.
[0062] The verification flow at the time of a money receiving transaction is the same as in the first embodiment (FIG. 4). FIG. 15 shows a re-verification process. The control unit 130 causes a second sensor 106 to sense a note (Step 1501), reads denomination information from the auxiliary memory 132 (Step 1301), and sends those items of information to the external bill validator 1201 through the communication line 503 (Step 1302). The subsequent steps are the same as those in the flow in FIG. 13. The fourth embodiment has the same advantage as that in the third embodiment, in other words, because a signal is obtained by another sensor separate from the sensor 105 in re-verification, re-verification can be continued while a transaction is in progress. Even during a time zone when transactions concentrate, re-verification work never gets retarded. It is chiefly while a note having undergone a re-verification process is being sent to the cash box that a transaction cannot be started. However, such an interruption ends quickly because notes are stored one sheet at a time and storing of a note after re-verification is finished soon.
[0063] Since a note is sensed while being transported at low speed, even if the second sensor is of the same kind as the first sensor, the resolution and the stability of signals that are output are improved, and the accuracy of re-verification is high accordingly. Because the first sensor needs to perform its function while a note passes at high speed, the resolution and the stability of the first sensor are limited. In contrast, the second sensor need not adapt to high-speed transport, and therefore a sensor of another type can be used which is better in resolution and stability than the first sensor. Therefore, the accuracy of re-verification can be further improved.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 3, Nagayoshi discloses, further
comprising:
performing authenticity determination on the sheet, i.e., at step (301) of figure 3 or step (402) of figure 4 or steps (1301, 1302, 1322) of figure 13, wherein
when the sheet is determined to be counterfeit as a result
of the authenticity determination, as shown in figure 3 at step (S306) or in figure 4 at steps (404 and 405) or in steps (1321-1324) of figure 13, the processing on the sheet is performed by using the result of the character recognition, i.e., at steps (313, 410) at figures 3 and 4 or step (1311) at figure 13, for example,
performed by the character recognition apparatus (1201), as illustrated in figures 4, 11, 13 and 14, for example.
Regarding Claim 4, Nagayoshi discloses, further
comprising:
when the sheet is determined to be counterfeit as the result
of the authenticity determination, i.e,. as shown at steps (305, 405, 1104, 1321, 1306), as illustrated in figures 3, 4, 11 and 13:
storing the sheet in a counterfeit note storage unit (313, ,410, 1110, 1311);
and
generating transaction specific information of the
sheet, associating the transaction specific information
generated and the result of the character recognition acquired
from the character recognition apparatus, i.e., as mentioned at paragraph 29, 4th and 5th sentences, stating “[w]ith regard to those notes whose results of counterfeit/genuine classification are unclassified notes, the main memory stores transaction information in addition to the above-mentioned information” and “the transaction information is information, including data by which to identify at least people who deposited the notes (the depositor's name or ID, for example), and the information may include the numbers of accounts and transaction dates”, and storing the transaction specific information and the result of the character
recognition in a memory unit, i.e., in main memory (131), as illustrated in figures 1 and 14 and as mentioned at paragraph 29, for example, the transaction specific information corresponding to the image information, as mentioned in paragraphs 29, 35, 37 , 46 and 58, noting steps (1301), “read the information for reverification from the auxiliary memory” and (1302), “transmit the sensor signal and information”, the sensor signal being the image and the information being the transaction information, as illustrated in figure 15, for example.
Regarding Claim 5, Nagayoshi discloses wherein:
when a character recognition rate of the character
recognition in the sheet processing apparatus is less than a
threshold, i.e., interpreted as having an issue such as a lower resolution image or unclear image, for example, the processing on the sheet is performed by using the result of the character recognition performed by the character
recognition apparatus, i.e., bill validator of outside (1201) and/or second sensor (106); and
when the character recognition rate is equal to or more than
the threshold, i.e., the resolution is higher/image is of better quality, the processing on the sheet is performed by using
the result of the character recognition performed by the sheet
processing apparatus, noting that reverification is performed using the lower speed of the second sensor (106) while verification is performed using a higher speed, i.e., via the first sensor (105) on other banknotes, thus changing the resolution and accuracy of the imaging, as mentioned at paragraphs 62 and 63.
Regarding Claim 6, Nagayoshi discloses, further
comprising:
when the character recognition rate of the character
recognition in the sheet processing apparatus is less than the
threshold, i.e., interpreted as :
storing the sheet in a counterfeit note storage unit (1311);
and
generating transaction specific information of the
sheet, as mentioned at paragraph 29, associating the transaction specific information
generated and the result of the character recognition acquired
from the character recognition apparatus, i.e., bill validator of outside (1201) as illustrated in figure 13, and as illustrated in figure 14, and storing the
transaction specific information and the result of the character
recognition in a memory unit, i.e., main memory (131), the transaction specific
information corresponding to the image information, as mentioned in paragraphs 62 and 63, for example.
Regarding Claim 7, Nagayoshi discloses,, further
comprising:
selecting one of the result of the character recognition
performed by the sheet processing apparatus, i.e., via control unit (130) and ATM (201) via sensor (105), and the result of
the character recognition performed by the character recognition
apparatus, i.e., outside bill validator (1201) and/or sensor (106) as illustrated in figures 13 and 14, for example, wherein the processing on the sheet is performed by using the result of the character recognition selected, i.e., noting that the result of the bill validator of outside (1201) is transmitted at step (1324) back to ATM (201), where after the result is received at step (1303), the processing is continued, as illustrated in figure 13, for example. See also figure 14, noting the two sensors (105) and (106) that image at different speeds, and thus at different resolutions, i.e., lower resolution at higher speed and higher resolution at lower speed, as mentioned at paragraphs 62 and 63, for example. See also paragraphs 39-42, for example.
Regarding Claim 8, Nagayoshi discloses, further
comprising:
during performing of deposit processing, i.e., via the cash in/out unit (101) as illustrated in figures 1 and 14, for example,
transmitting the image information of the sheet to the
character recognition apparatus (1201), i.e., as mentioned at figure 13, step (1302) “transmit the information”, and transporting the sheet
based on the result of the character recognition performed by
the character recognition apparatus (1201), noting the steps (1308), i.e., “is the result valid note”, which based upon the answer, the banknote/document is sent to cash recycling at step (1309), the cash box for spoiled notes at step (1310) and the cash box for counterfeit notes at step (1311), in figure 13, for example.
Regarding Claim 9, Nagayoshi discloses
further comprising:
holding the sheet in a temporary holding unit, i.e., temporary stacker (110), as illustrated in figures 4 and 14, and as mentioned at paragraphs 29-31, 33, 38 and 41;
when a character recognition rate of the character
recognition apparatus is equal to or more than a threshold, i.e., interpreted to be represented by a banknote that is detected as suitable for withdrawal based upon the image quality/resolution, as mentioned at paragraph 38, sixth and seventh sentences,
transporting the sheet from the temporary holding unit (110) to a
recycling storage unit, i.e, cash recycling box (120, 121); and
when the character recognition rate is less than the
threshold, i.e., interpreted as being a banknote that is detected as unsuitable for withdrawal based upon the image quality/resolution, as mentioned at paragraphs 29-31, 33, 38 and 41, transporting the sheet from the temporary holding unit (110) to a collection unit or a reject unit, i.e,. cash box for unclassified notes (122), cash box for spoiled notes (123), cash box for counterfeit notes (124), cash box for unclassified notes (122, 125).
Regarding Claim 11, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 12, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 13, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 14, see the rejection of Claim 4, above.
Regarding Claim 15, see the rejection of Claim 5, above.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayoshi et al (US 2004/0084521 A1) in view of Fukuda et al (US 2019/0172292 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Nagayoshi does not expressly teach, further
comprising:
during performing of reconciliation processing,
performing the character recognition of the sheet in
the sheet processing apparatus, and collating the result of the
character recognition performed by the sheet processing
apparatus with the result of the character recognition performed
by the character recognition apparatus during the deposit
processing.
Regarding Claim 10, Nagayoshi does not expressly teach, but Fukuda teaches further comprising:
during performing of reconciliation processing, as mentioned at paragraphs 136 and 333, for example,
performing the recognition of the sheet via the recognition unit (24), as illustrated in figures 4 and 27, for example, in
the sheet processing apparatus (1), and collating the result of the
recognition performed by the sheet processing
apparatus (1), via recognition unit (24), with the result of the recognition performed by the sheet processing apparatus (1) during the deposit processing.
Regarding Claim 10, 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:
during performing of reconciliation processing,
performing the character recognition of the sheet in
the sheet processing apparatus, and collating the result of the
character recognition performed by the sheet processing
apparatus with the result of the character recognition performed
by the character recognition apparatus during the deposit
processing, as taught by Fukuda, in Nagayoshi’s for the purpose of enabling character recognition during a reconciliation process so as to verify document inventory accuracy upon detection of document or machine anomalies/errors.
Therefore, regarding Claim 10, it would have been obvious to have used Fukuda’s reconciliation process with temporary storage unit with Nagayoshi’s automatic teller machine with outside bill validator/character recognition apparatus since both Fukuda’s and Nagayoshi’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.
Csulits ‘234 is cited as teaching at col. 85, lines 21-29 stating that “if it is desired to image a particular document at a lower resolution, according to some embodiments, the device 101, 101' is configured to increase the document handling speed and image the document at a lower resolution”. Note also the extraction of serial numbers of banknotes as illustrated in figures 9A-12G, for example using document processing devices (101a) and (101b) that is connected via network (420), as illustrated in figures 1, 4a and 4b, for example.
Takeuchi ‘197 is cited as teaching a banknote processing device (10) as illustrated in figure 1, or terminal (1000) at a bank branch (100) which also connects to a banking center (300) and which also connects to an external judging organization (200) as illustrated in figure 11, for example.
Kagehiro ‘233 is cited as teaching an ATM (202) that images banknotes and sends them to comparison device (222) and links initial deposits with subsequent deposits as illustrated in figure 2, for example.
Mazowiesky ‘951 is cited as teaching an apparatus with a central processor (417) connected to microprocessors (17) of validator (100) and (317) of apparatus (300) with the processor (417) deciding if information is incorrect or fraudulent, and/or not verified, so that it indicates to processors (17, 317) to reject the information source, as illustrated in figure 4 and as mentioned at col. 6, line 66-col. 7, line 17, for example.
Tomizawa ‘407 is cited as teaching a withdrawal device (100) as illustrated in figure 5, with imaging sensor (116) and magnetic sensor (117), as mentioned at paragraph 65, with optical character recognition (OCR) in verification section (20), as mentioned in paragraph 53, 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
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights