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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “indicative of con information” is recited. The examiner believes that the limitation should instead recite “indicative of coin information”.
The applicant is advised that should claim 22 be found allowable, claim 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The same applies to claims 24 and 30.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 17-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,875,626. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are broader than the claims of the conflicting patent, except as indicated below:
Current application 18/543,242
Conflicting patent 11,875,626
17
A currency processing system comprising:
a chamber configured to receive a batch of coins;
one or more coin holding devices operatively coupled to the chamber; and
a coin processing unit operatively coupled to the chamber and the one or more coin holding devices and configured to transfer coins therebetween, the coin processing unit including:
a transport mechanism configured to impart motion to the coins;
a system adjacent the transport mechanism configured to guide the coins, responsive to motion imparted by the transport mechanism, to the one or more coin holding devices; and
an array of sensors disposed adjacent to the transport mechanism, the array of sensors configured to sense each of the coins and output signals indicative of coin information for processing the coins,
wherein the signals indicative of coin information include signals correlated to coin authenticity as a function of location and the coin processing unit transfers the coins as a function of the signals indicative of con information that correlate to coin authenticity as a function of location.
1
A method for inspecting coins, comprising:
A “system” is not recited here; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the subject matter of the method in a currency processing system.
receiving a plurality of coins at a processing system having an inspection chamber and a mechanical transport;
packaging each coin using a packaging system coupled to the mechanical transport and configured to receive the processed coins and to package one or more coins
Presence of “one or more coin holding devices” is/are understood once the coins are packaged.
processing each coin using an optical sensor assembly mounted at least partially within the inspection chamber adjacent the mechanical transport, the optical sensor assembly being configured to analyze coins moving on the mechanical transport and to generate image signals indicative of coin image information for processing the coins, the optical sensor assembly including one or more light emitting devices and a control device communicatively coupled to and operable for controlling the one or more light emitting devices; and packaging each coin using a packaging system coupled to the mechanical transport and configured to receive the processed coins and to package one or more coins
The conflicting patent does not appear to include the same subject matter in the left column. However, secondary reference Dabic (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0301009) discloses a coin rail 203 in Fig. 2A and [0063] that is adjacent to a carousel 205 (transport mechanism) to the implied coin holding devices of the packaging system. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “a system adjacent the transport mechanism configured to guide the coins, responsive to motion imparted by the transport mechanism, to the one or more coin holding devices” to the conflicting patent for the expected and predictable result of preventing coin jams during transport.
processing each coin using an optical sensor assembly mounted at least partially within the inspection chamber adjacent the mechanical transport, the optical sensor assembly being configured to analyze coins moving on the mechanical transport and to generate image signals indicative of coin image information for processing the coins, the optical sensor assembly including one or more light emitting devices and a control device communicatively coupled to and operable for controlling the one or more light emitting devices;
The conflicting patent does not appear to include all the same subject matter; however, Truong (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0355864) discloses in Fig. 2 and [0031]: “The apparatus 200 includes a positioning device 202 capable of receiving a coin and maintaining the coin in a position in which a feature of the coin is directed toward one or two sensing devices 204. The sensing devices 204 are generally fixed relative to the positioning device 202 in order to capture images of the coin. The sensing devices 204 are in communication (wired or wireless) with a computer 206 to transmit captured images to the computer 206.” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the capability of processing signals from an array of sensors for the expected and predictable result of authentication of both sides of a coin.
wherein the coin image information comprises a set of pixels of image data associated with a location where the coin was acquired.
The conflicting patent does not appear to include all the same subject matter (“signals correlated to coin authenticity as a function of location and the coin processing unit transfers the coins as a function of the signals indicative of con information that correlate to coin authenticity as a function of location.”) in the left column. However, Truong discloses in Fig. 4 and [0050]: “Authentication may be performed by…iii) coin processors in order to verify that coins are not counterfeit prior to sorting, rolling and wrapping coins.” The authentication is performed by identifying a family to which a coin belongs, as seen in [0038]: “Authentication may be performed following the method of FIG. 1 and includes comparing 400 a digital representation of the acquisition area with digital representations stored in memory and identifying 402 the coin. Identification may include identifying a family to which the coin belongs, identifying a sub-family to which the coin belongs or uniquely identifying the coin.” The family identifies a minting facility or lineage of the coin, as seen in [0025]: “The common component may further be referred to as a family component when the common component is unique to a group of coins manufactured at the same minting facility or manufactured using the same die, for example. The common components may be used to trace the lineage of the coin.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the capability to process “signals correlated to coin authenticity as a function of location and the coin processing unit transfers the coins as a function of the signals indicative of con information that correlate to coin authenticity as a function of location” to the conflicting patent for the expected and predictable result of improved sorting of recognized coins that are input.
18
The system of claim 17 wherein the signals correlated to coin authenticity comprise locations associated with origins of the coins.
The conflicting patent does not appear to include the same subject matter; however, Truong teaches in [0025]: “The acquisition area includes a feature that is unique to the coin. The feature may include a first component, which may be referred to as a common component, meaning that other coins may include the first component as part of their feature, and a second component, which is unique to the manufactured item and may be referred to as a random component. The common component may further be referred to as a family component when the common component is unique to a group of coins manufactured at the same minting facility or manufactured using the same die, for example. The common components may be used to trace the lineage of the coin.”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the capability of processing signals that “comprise locations associated with origins of the coins” for the expected and predictable result of use of a common coin attribute for improved authentication.
19
The system of claim 17 wherein the signals correlated to coin authenticity comprise locations where the coins were found.
1
wherein the coin image information comprises a set of pixels of image data associated with a location where the coin was acquired.
20
The system of claim 17 wherein the signals from each of the array of sensors are processed to determine coin authenticity.
The conflicting patent does not appear to include the same subject matter; however, Dabic (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0301009) discloses in [0047]: “In the imaging region 105, image data is collected by which coins are identified by denomination, type, date, and origin of mint.” Then see [0065]: “The coin may then pass through an auxiliary sensor 202 such as an inductance coil which can provide information regarding a coin's secondary attributes such as size, diameter, conductivity and weight.” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the capability of processing signals from each of the array of sensors for the expected and predictable result of more rigorous authentication.
21
The system of claim 17 wherein the signals from two or more sensors of the array of sensors are used to determine coin authenticity.
The conflicting patent does not appear to include the same subject matter; however, Dabic (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0301009) discloses in [0047]: “In the imaging region 105, image data is collected by which coins are identified by denomination, type, date, and origin of mint.” Then see [0065]: “The coin may then pass through an auxiliary sensor 202 such as an inductance coil which can provide information regarding a coin's secondary attributes such as size, diameter, conductivity and weight.” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the capability of processing signals from two sensors of the array of sensors for the expected and predictable result of more rigorous authentication.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 20-27, and 29-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabic (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0301009) in view of Truong (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0355864).
Claim 17 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
Dabic discloses:
A currency processing system (See the Abstract.) comprising:
a chamber configured to receive a batch of coins (See Fig. 2A and [0052], sockets 212 serving as the claimed chamber.);
one or more coin holding devices operatively coupled to the chamber (See [0049]: “The coin pickup assembly 154 places the coins onto a coin rail 171 along which the coins pass a sensor 166 and move towards a means for mechanical discrimination of the coins. For example, if, based on the image data and/or sensor data, it is determined that the coin can and should be accepted, a controllable deflector flap 167 is activated to divert coins from their gravitational path to a coin tube 168 for delivery to a primary coin bin, or trolley, 158.”); and
a coin processing unit operatively coupled to the chamber and the one or more coin holding devices and configured to transfer coins therebetween, the coin processing unit including (See Fig. 2A, coin pickup assembly (or carousel) 205.):
a transport mechanism configured to impart motion to the coins (See ledge 209 in Fig. 2A and [0063]: “After image capture and image processing, the carousel 205 advances the coin to the apex of the coin sliding surface 213 where a hole in the coin sliding surface produces a ledge 209 that causes the coins to slide over and fall behind the plane of the coin sliding surface 213…”.);
a system adjacent the transport mechanism configured to guide the coins, responsive to motion imparted by the transport mechanism (See Fig. 2A, guide rail 203 and [0063]: “After image capture and image processing, the carousel 205 advances the coin to the apex of the coin sliding surface 213 where a hole in the coin sliding surface produces a ledge 209 that causes the coins to slide over and fall behind the plane of the coin sliding surface 213 onto a coin rail 203 which guides coins, e.g. coin 204, behind the plane of the coin sliding surface 213.”), to the one or more coin holding devices (See [0067]: “A means for mechanically discriminating the coins, depending on the processed image data and/or auxiliary sensor data, can be employed to separate coins based on predetermined factors. For example, coins may then be mechanically discriminated by a servomechanism 239 (FIG. 2C), or solenoid driven actuator which controls a discriminating means such as a door or flap 201 which can alter the trajectory of coins into bins, chutes, return trays, etc.”); and
an array of sensors disposed adjacent to the transport mechanism, the array of sensors configured to sense each of the coins and output signals indicative of coin information for processing the coins (See Fig. 2A, 207a, 207b, and [0051]: “FIG. 2A depicts a side view of an embodiment of a coin collection region, or hopper 214, a coin pickup assembly 205, imaging devices 207 a,b, a guide rail 203, an auxiliary sensor 202 and a means for mechanical discrimination 201.”),
Dabic does not explicitly disclose the following; however, Truong discloses:
wherein the signals indicative of coin information include signals correlated to coin authenticity as a function of location and the coin processing unit transfers the coins as a function of the signals indicative of con information that correlate to coin authenticity as a function of location (See [0050]: “Authentication may be performed by…iii) coin processors in order to verify that coins are not counterfeit prior to sorting, rolling and wrapping coins.” The authentication is performed by identifying a family to which a coin belongs, as seen in [0038]: “Authentication may be performed following the method of FIG. 1 and includes comparing 400 a digital representation of the acquisition area with digital representations stored in memory and identifying 402 the coin. Identification may include identifying a family to which the coin belongs, identifying a sub-family to which the coin belongs or uniquely identifying the coin.” The family identifies a minting facility or lineage of the coin, as seen in [0025]: “The common component may further be referred to as a family component when the common component is unique to a group of coins manufactured at the same minting facility or manufactured using the same die, for example. The common components may be used to trace the lineage of the coin.”).
Dabic and Truong together teach the limitations of claim 17. Truong is directed to a similar field of art (coin identification, authentication, and sorting). Therefore, Dabic and Truong are combinable. Dabic identifies “primary attributes” such as origin of mint, but does not explicitly authenticate coins based on these attributes (see [0047]). Dabic does explicitly authenticate coins based on “secondary attributes” (non-location-related data) found by measuring changes in inductance as a coin passes by. Modifying the system and method of Dabic by adding the capability of processing “signals indicative of coin information include signals correlated to coin authenticity as a function of location and the coin processing unit transfers the coins as a function of the signals indicative of con information that correlate to coin authenticity as a function of location”, as taught by Truong, would yield the expected and predictable result of more robust coin authentication by considering both image data and inductive measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dabic and Truong in this way.
Claim 18 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
And Truong further discloses:
the signals correlated to coin authenticity comprise locations associated with origins of the coins (See [0025]: “The common component may further be referred to as a family component when the common component is unique to a group of coins manufactured at the same minting facility or manufactured using the same die, for example. The common components may be used to trace the lineage of the coin.”).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 20 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
And Truong further discloses:
the signals from each of the array of sensors are processed to determine coin authenticity (See Fig. 2, both cameras 204 and [0033]: “In yet another example, the sensing devices are digital cameras and the feature is a surface feature of the coin… Two cameras may also be used when the surface feature is only on one side of the manufactured item.” Both sets of data are used in the authentication method of Fig. 4.).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 21 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
And Truong further discloses:
the signals from two or more sensors of the array of sensors are used to determine coin authenticity (See Fig. 2, both cameras 204 and [0033]: “In yet another example, the sensing devices are digital cameras and the feature is a surface feature of the coin… Two cameras may also be used when the surface feature is only on one side of the manufactured item.” Both sets of data are used in the authentication method of Fig. 4.).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 22 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
And Truong further discloses:
a coin is determined to be counterfeit when a signal from a first sensor is inconsistent with a signal from a second sensor (See Fig. 4, “digital representation of acquisition area of coin” meets “signal from a first sensor” and “digital representations stored in memory” (created by registration of previously acquired images by a sensor, as seen in [0036]-[0037]) meets “signal from a second sensor”.).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 23 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
And Truong further discloses:
a coin is determined to be counterfeit when a signal from a first sensor is inconsistent with a signal from a second sensor (See Fig. 4, “digital representation of acquisition area of coin” meets “signal from a first sensor” and “digital representations stored in memory” (created by registration of previously acquired images by a sensor, as seen in [0036]-[0037]) meets “signal from a second sensor”.).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 24 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
And Truong further discloses:
a coin is determined to be non-authentic as a function of image data from a first sensor and electrical data from a second sensor (See [0032]: “The sensing devices used to capture an image may be of an opto-electronic type, x-ray sensitive, infrared sensitive, ultra-violet sensitive and ultrasonic sensitive.”).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 25 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
Dabic, as modified by Truong in the treatment of claim 17, discloses:
a coin is determined to be non-authentic as a function of image data from a first sensor and image data from a second sensor (See the “primary attributes” extracted from image data (by either of cameras 207a and b in Fig. 2A) in [0047] and “secondary attributes” determined from inductance measurements in [0065].).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 26 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
Dabic, as modified by Truong in the treatment of claim 17, discloses:
a coin is determined to be non-authentic as a function of image data from a first sensor, image data from a second sensor and electrical data from a third sensor (See the “primary attributes” extracted from image data (by both cameras 207a and b in Fig. 2A) in [0047] and “secondary attributes” determined from inductance measurements in [0065].).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 27 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
Dabic, as modified by Truong in the treatment of claim 17, discloses:
a coin is determined to be non-authentic as a function of image data from a first sensor associated with a location and electrical data from a second sensor associated with a location (See the “primary attributes” (including origin of mint) extracted from image data (by either of cameras 207a and b in Fig. 2A) in [0047] and “secondary attributes” determined from inductance measurements in [0065]: “The coin may then pass through an auxiliary sensor 202 such as an inductance coil which can provide information regarding a coin's secondary attributes such as size, diameter, conductivity and weight.” Variance in surface conductivity meets “electrical data…associated with a location”.).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 29 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
And Truong further discloses:
a coin is determined to be non-authentic as a function of image data from a first sensor failing to match authentic image data and data from a second sensor (See [0051]: “When family identification is performed, the authentication method generally identifies the coin by outputting a pass or fail result or by outputting the type or denomination of the coin.”).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 30 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
And Truong further discloses:
a coin is determined to be non-authentic as a function of image data from a first sensor and electrical data from a second sensor (See [0032]: “The sensing devices used to capture an image may be of an opto-electronic type, x-ray sensitive, infrared sensitive, ultra-violet sensitive and ultrasonic sensitive.”).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 31 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
Dabic, as modified by Truong in the treatment of claim 17, discloses:
a coin is determined to be authentic when a signal from a first sensor matches data associated with a location and a signal from a second sensor matches data associated with the location (See the “primary attributes” (including origin of mint) extracted from image data (by either of cameras 207a and b in Fig. 2A) in [0047] and “secondary attributes” determined from inductance measurements in [0065]: “The coin may then pass through an auxiliary sensor 202 such as an inductance coil which can provide information regarding a coin's secondary attributes such as size, diameter, conductivity and weight.” Variance in surface conductivity meets “a signal…associated with a location”.).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 32 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
Dabic, as modified by Truong in the treatment of claim 17, discloses:
a coin is determined to be authentic when a signal from a first sensor matches data associated with a location, a signal from a second sensor matches data associated with the location, and a signal from a third sensor matches data associated with the location (See the “primary attributes” (including origin of mint) extracted from image data (by both cameras 207a and b in Fig. 2A) in [0047] and “secondary attributes” determined from inductance measurements in [0065]: “The coin may then pass through an auxiliary sensor 202 such as an inductance coil which can provide information regarding a coin's secondary attributes such as size, diameter, conductivity and weight.” Variance in surface conductivity meets “a signal…associated with a location”.).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 33 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
And Truong further discloses:
a coin is determined to be non-authentic when a signal from a first sensor matches data associated with a country and a signal from a second sensor matches data associated with a different country (See Fig. 4, “digital representation of acquisition area of coin” with a matched identifier (see [0036]-[0037) meets “signal from a first sensor matches data associated with a country” and “digital representations stored in memory” with another matched identifier meets “signal from a second sensor associated with a different country”, based on mint facilities located in various countries.).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 34 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
And Truong further discloses:
a coin is determined to be non-authentic when a signal from a first sensor matches data associated with a location and a signal from a second sensor matches data associated with a different location (See Fig. 4, “digital representation of acquisition area of coin” with a matched identifier (see [0036]-[0037) meets “signal from a first sensor matches data associated with a country” and “digital representations stored in memory” with another matched identifier meets “signal from a second sensor associated with a different country”, based on mint facilities located in different locations.).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 17.
Claim 35 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
And Dabic further discloses:
the array of sensors is a linear array of sensors (See imaging devices 207a and 207b in Fig. 2A.).
Claim 36 is met by the combination of Dabic and Truong, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
And Dabic further discloses:
the array of sensors faces the transport mechanism (See imaging devices 207a and 207b in Fig. 2A that face opposite sides of the carousel 205 and ledge 209.)
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabic (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0301009) in view of Truong (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0355864) in view of Jönsson (WO2011144931A1).
Claim 28 is met by the combination of Dabic, Truong, and Jönsson, wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong discloses:
The system of claim 17 wherein
The combination of Dabic and Truong does not appear to disclose the following; however, Jönsson teaches:
a coin is determined to be non-authentic when image data from a first sensor and electrical data from a second sensor matches predetermined data (See page 15, lines 10-14: “The electronic processor typically includes a database of stored reference data indicative of properties of the coin that indicate that a coin is genuine, bogus, or both.”).
Dabic, Truong, and Jönsson together teach the limitations of claim 28. Jönsson is directed to a similar field of art (coin discrimination and sorting). Therefore, Dabic, Truong, and Jönsson are combinable. Modifying the system and method of Dabic & Truong by adding the capability of “a coin is determined to be non-authentic when image data from a first sensor and electrical data from a second sensor matches predetermined data”, as taught by Jönsson, would yield the expected and predictable result of more robust coin authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dabic, Truong, and Jönsson in this way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (1) if the double patenting rejection is overcome and (2) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. None of the prior art of record discloses or suggests: “wherein the signals correlated to coin authenticity comprise locations associated with origins of the coins.” See the reasons for allowance given in the Notices of Allowance in U.S. App. Nos. 14/538,640, 15/180,867, and 17/389,514.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30 AM - 7:30 PM.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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.
/Jonathan S Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677