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 § 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, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuda et al (US 2019/0172292 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fukuda discloses
a banknote recycler (BNR) device, i.e., banknote handling apparatus (1), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, for example, comprising:
a bunch note feeder, i.e., inlet (211) with depositing unit (21), and as illustrated in figure 2, for example, configured to receive a banknote bunch, i.e, a stack of documents, as mentioned at as mentioned at paragraph 145, mentioning that “depositing unit 21 is configured to maintain a plurality of banknotes being stacked” in the second to last sentence;
a plurality of recyclers, i.e., any of storages (21-22, 31, 311-313, 32, 321-323, 33, 34, 35, 36, 361-366, 37, 371, 372) as illustrated in figures 2-4 and figures 29-35, noting that each of these storages are designed to both receive and dispense banknotes, wherein each of the plurality of recyclers, i.e, first and second winding storages (34, 371 and 372) as illustrated in figure 29, for example, is a recycling drum configured to temporarily store banknotes of a designated denomination, as mentioned at paragraphs 167, 168, 181, 217-223, 290, 307 and 357-367, for example;
a transport path, i.e., (411-418, 4111, 4112), as mentioned at paragraph 148 and as illustrated in figures 2 and 29, for example, configured to transport banknotes in the banknote bunch between the bunch note feeder (21, 211) and each of the plurality of recyclers (21-22, 31, 311-313, 32, 321-323, 33, 34, 35, 36, 361-366, 37, 371, 372);
a recognition sensor, i.e., recognition unit (24) as illustrated in figures 2 and 29, positioned along the transport path (411-418, 4111, 4112) and configured to verify acceptance of each banknote in the received banknote bunch, as mentioned at paragraphs 148 and 149, for example; and
a processor, i.e., controller (15) as illustrated in figure 5 and as mentioned at paragraphs 166, 180-185, and 239, for example, operably coupled to the bunch note feeder (21, 211), the recognition sensor (24), the transport path (411-418, 4111, 4112), and the plurality of recyclers (21-22, 31, 311-313, 32, 321-323, 33, 34, 35, 36, 361-366, 37, 371, 372), the processor configured to:
assign one of the plurality of recyclers, i.e., external storage (35), as an escrow recycler, i.e, instead of temporary storage (34), as mentioned in paragraphs 330, or the multi-purpose storage (33), as mentioned at paragraph 337, and as illustrated in figure 27, for example,
identify, i.e., via the recognition unit (24), at least one unacceptable banknote in the banknote bunch,
route the at least one unacceptable banknote to the escrow recycler (34, 371 and 372) based on the identification of the at least one unacceptable banknote, and
after the bunch note feeder (21, 211) and the transport path (411-418, 4111, 4112) are empty, route the at least one unacceptable banknote from the escrow recycler (34, 371 and 372) along the transport path (411-418, 4111, 4112) to an outlet, i.e, second dispensing unit (23) with second outlet (231), as mentioned at paragraphs 217-221 and as illustrated in figure 14, for example.
Regarding Claim 8, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 15, see the rejection of Claim 1, 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.
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) 2-5, 7, 9-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda et al (US 2019/0172292 A1) in view of Hallowell et al (US 2007/0278064 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 9-14 and 16-19, Fukuda teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 2, Fukuda does not expressly teach
wherein, to assign the escrow recycler, the processor is configured to:
receive a user input identifying a specific recycler to use as the escrow recycler; and assign the escrow recycler based on the received user input.
Regarding Claim 2, Fukuda does not expressly teach, but Hallowell teaches
wherein, to assign the escrow recycler, i.e., pockets 1 through 6 as illustrated in figure 9 or any of cassettes 1 through 6 in figure 13a, the processor, i.e., control unit (120) as mentioned at paragraphs 80 and 81 and as illustrated in figure 1a and the “CPU” as mentioned at paragraph 122, for example, is configured to:
receive a user input, i.e., via user interface/touch screen (900), as illustrated in figures 9 and 12 and as mentioned at paragraphs 136-140, for example, identifying a specific recycler, i.e., pockets 1 through 6 as illustrated in figure 9 or any of cassettes 1 through 6 in figure 13a, to use as the escrow recycler; and assign the escrow recycler based on the received user input. See also paragraphs 141-151 and 167, for example.
Regarding Claim 2, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein, to assign the escrow recycler, the processor is configured to:
receive a user input identifying a specific recycler to use as the escrow recycler; and assign the escrow recycler based on the received user input, as taught by Hallowell, in Fukuda’s banknote recycler for the purpose of automatically assigning specific sorting criteria to specific banknote/document storage locations, thus increasing utility by increasing efficiency of use and time and cost savings.
Regarding Claim 3, Fukuda does not expressly teach wherein the escrow recycler is assigned based on a specified denomination.
Regarding Claim 3, Fukuda does not expressly teach, but Hallowell teaches wherein the escrow recycler, i.e., pockets 1 through 6 as illustrated in figure 9 or any of cassettes 1 through 6 in figure 13a, is assigned based on a specified denomination, as illustrated in figures 9-13b.
Regarding Claim 4, Fukuda does not expressly teach
wherein the escrow recycler is assigned based on a depletion for each of the plurality of recyclers.
Regarding Claim 4, Fukuda does not expressly teach, but Hallowell teaches
wherein the escrow recycler, i.e., pockets 1 through 6 as illustrated in figure 9 or any of cassettes 1 through 6 in figure 13a, is assigned based on a depletion for each of the plurality of recyclers, noting that depletion is construed as including how full a particular storage is, as mentioned in paragraph 141, last two sentences and paragraphs 178, 222 and 260, for example.
Regarding Claim 5, Fukuda does not expressly teach
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine that the escrow recycler does not have a minimum space available for a replenish operation; and
empty an amount of banknotes stored in the escrow recycler prior to receiving the banknote bunch to a cashbox in order for the escrow recycler to have the minimum space available for the replenish operation.
Regarding Claim 5, Fukuda does not expressly teach, but Hallowell teaches
wherein the processor (120) is configured to:
determine that the escrow recycler, i.e., pockets 1 through 6 as illustrated in figure 9 or any of cassettes 1 through 6 in figure 13a, does not have a minimum space available for a replenish operation, i.e., interpreted as any sorting operation where banknotes are input in a stack and fed through the banknote handling device to be sorted; and
empty an amount of banknotes stored in the escrow recycler, i.e, any one of the pockets or cassettes, prior to receiving the banknote bunch to a cashbox, i.e., construed as any type of storage location such as pockets or cassettes, in order for the escrow recycler to have the minimum space available for the replenish operation, as mentioned at paragraph 85, i.e., “[u]pon detection of the first British pound note, the currency handling device 100 may halt operation allowing the operator to empty the lower output receptacles 106c-106h and to make any spatial adjustments necessary to accommodate the British currency”. Note also paragraphs 93 and 102, and as illustrated in figure 12, showing the full/empty status of each pocket/cassette/storage location. See also paragraphs 154-158, 178, last sentence, and paragraph 222, for example.
Regarding Claim 7, Fukuda does not expressly teach
wherein the processor is further configured to:
identify an acceptable banknote of a denomination corresponding to the escrow recycler; and
transfer the acceptable banknote to a bundler when the at least one unacceptable banknote is already stored on the escrow recycler.
Regarding Claim 7, Fukuda does not expressly teach, but Hallowell teaches
wherein the processor (124) is further configured to:
identify an acceptable banknote of a denomination corresponding to the escrow recycler, i.e., any of the pockets or cassettes; and
transfer the acceptable banknote to a bundler, i.e., any of strappers (1750) as illustrated in figure 29 and as mentioned at paragraph 244, paragraph 245, last sentence, “ incomplete stacks of bills could be automatically removed from the strapper position such as by being ejected to a holding bin”, when the at least one unacceptable banknote is already stored on the escrow recycler, i.e., interpreted as when the particular pocket or cassette is already full, and thus a new pocket or cassette must be dynamically assigned to the banknotes of the particular sorting criteria. See also paragraph 248-250 and 260, for example.
Regarding Claim 9, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 10, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 11, see the rejection of Claim 4, above.
Regarding Claim 12, see the rejection of Claim 5, above.
Regarding Claim 14, see the rejection of Claim 7, above.
Regarding Claim 16, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 18, see the rejection of Claim 4, above.
Regarding Claim 19, see the rejection of Claim 5, above.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda et al (US 2019/0172292 A1) in view of Deas et al (US 2012/0161386 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20, Fukuda teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 6, Fukuda does not expressly teach
wherein the processor is further configured to:
when the escrow recycler is full, purge the transport path and route the at least one unacceptable banknotes from the escrow recycler to the outlet.
Regarding Claim 6, Fukuda does not expressly teach, but Deas teaches
wherein the processor, i.e, control board (28) as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned in paragraph 64, is further configured to:
when the escrow recycler is full, purge the transport path and route the at least one unacceptable banknotes from the escrow recycler to the outlet, as mentioned at paragraphs 33, and 116-118, which state as follows.
[0033] The media presenter may further comprise a media item transport unit arranged to receive a picked media item from a pick unit and to transport the picked media item to the carriage when the carriage plate is in the open position. The media item transport unit may be operable to divert a transported media item to a purge compartment of a purge bin if the media item does not meet an acceptance criterion (such as the media item being thicker than permitted, which may indicate multiple superimposed media items being transported as a single item, the media item being skewed, the media item being torn, or the like).
[0116] When at the present purge position, the upper and lower transport sections 90,110 transport the bunch of banknotes out of the carriage 20 via the non-entrance end 104 and into a present bunch purge compartment 180 (best shown by FIGS. 1 and 10) of the purge bin 18 via a present bunch slot 182 defined in an upper surface of the purge bin 18. The third banknote sensor 84 detects when the bunch of banknotes 176 has exited the carriage 20. When this occurs, the banknote bunch 176 enters the present bunch slot 182, and the carriage 20 is moved back to the loading position by the control board 28 driving the carriage moving motor 94a to rotate the drive cogs 106.
[0117] In this embodiment there is a second purge position (the non-present purge position), which is closer to the handle end 30 than the present purge position. This is used for any purge operations in which the bunch of banknotes 176 is never presented to a customer (and therefore there was no possibility of customer fraud). The carriage 20 is located at the second purge position when the non-entrance end is aligned with a non-present bunch slot 184 defined by an upper surface of the purge bin 18. The non-present bunch slot 184 is located above a non-present bunch purge compartment 186. There are a number of reasons why the non-present bunch purge compartment 186 may be used. For example, if insufficient banknotes are available to complete a bunch of banknotes, if there is a power fail during a stacking operation, if the single banknote purge compartment 168 is full and a transported banknote in the banknote transport unit 16 needs to be diverted to the purge bin 18, if a customer cancels the transaction before the bunch is presented, if there is a fault with one of the components and an auto-recovery process needs to be implemented, or if there is an attempted fraud prior to presenting the bunch.
[0118] By having separate compartments for bunches of banknotes that were purged because they were not removed by customers, and bunches that were purged because of an internal problem with the cash dispenser, it is easier to identify and reconcile those transactions that were possibly due to customer fraud (that is, the customer removing some but not all banknotes in a bunch).
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 6, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the processor is further configured to:
when the escrow recycler is full, purge the transport path and route the at least one unacceptable banknotes from the escrow recycler to the outlet, as taught by Hallowell, in Fukuda’s banknote recycler for the purpose of automatically clearing the transport pathways as well as any particular storage desired to be used to assign banknotes/documents to, for the purpose of accommodating machine issues while accurately reconciling the inventory of banknotes/documents.
Regarding Claim 13, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
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.
Kamata ‘507 is cited as teaching an automatic path purging operation as mentioned at col. 5, lines 25-35, col. 6, line 57-col. 7, line 2 and as illustrated in figure 4, for example.
Chen ‘649 is cited as teaching a banknote recycler (1) having a bunch note feeder (10) with recognition sensor (30), a plurality of recyclers (60a, 60b) with collection container (51) and reject unit (70), as illustrated in figure 2, all controlled by control unit (100) as illustrated in figure 3.
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 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights