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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination 12/29/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 15 and 18 have been amended..
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
A Terminal Disclaimer was filed on 03/07/2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant asserted in page 10 that “[the] cellular transceiver, in combination with other additional elements, are used in a set of steps that are integrated into an overall claimed process, which, when viewed as a whole, has the clear, practical application of an improved computing system.” However, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
With regard to step 2B Prong Two, the Applicant asserted that “’additional elements’ that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . . .”, the Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant application and those of DDR Holdings. In DDR Holdings an improvement in web technology was used to address the problem of retaining web customers. DDR Holdings was solving a problem introduced by technology, such that it was a technological solution to a technological problem. Whereas the Applicants’ invention is a technological solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea. The claims of the instant case employ at least one processing circuit, one or more processors, a plurality of cassettes suitably programmed to perform the claimed functions. In light of the Alice decision and the July 2015 Update of Interim Guidance Identifying Abstract Ideas the features such as “receiving cassette data . . .”, “determining . . . a location of the first cassette . . .”, “determining . . . fill level . . .”, “transmitting a notification . . .” are not considered an improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. These features recited in the claim are only further refinements of the abstract idea. That does not change the fact that the claim is drawn to abstract ideas. There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. As discussed earlier, the claimed steps of the method are all functions that are conventional for a computer system, which in the Applicant’s invention comprises at least one processing circuit, one or more processors . . .: . The claimed sequence of steps comprises only "steps, specified at a high level of generality," which is insufficient to supply an "inventive concept." Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). Also the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). In Alice also the system was specifically programmed to perform the claimed functions.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under both step 2A and 2B analysis.
Notes: the claim is not patent eligible because the wireless transceiver comprising a cellular transceiver is outside the scope of the claim, as the claim is from the processing circuit’s (presumably a central server perspective). If the claim was clear that the cassette was determining its own location in this manner and was within the scope of the computing system, it would help. But right now, this functionality is buried within a “determine . . .” step (which is, again, outside the scope of “determining a location”). Having some clear separate steps would help.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the applicant has amended the independent claims. The arguments, hence, are moot over new ground(s) of rejections. The added limitation is disclosed by the newly cited reference Warmulla. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones by using sensor to detect fill level as taught by Warmulla, because modifying Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones using elements taught by Warmulla helps to arrange and package container or cassette (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references. Hence, the 103 rejection is maintained. Please refer to the rejection below for further details.
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 1-20 are directed to a system, or method which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, Method of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 9 recite, in part, A computing system comprising: at least one processing circuit having one or more processors coupled to machine readable storage media having instructions stored therein that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the at least one processing circuit to: receive cassette data from a first cassette of a plurality of cassettes, the cassette data including a fill level of the first cassette acquired by a sensor associated with the first cassette, the sensor configured to detect a physical dimension of a stack of bills within the first cassette, the fill level based on the physical dimension; determine, based on the cassette data, (i) a location of the first cassette based on location data associated with the first cassette, the location data received by a wireless transceiver associated with the first cassette, the wireless transceiver comprising a cellular transceiver configured to receive location information for the first cassette from one or more nearby cellular towers, (ii) that a fill level of the first cassette does not satisfy a threshold, and (iii) one or more denominations of bills contained within the first cassette; identify a second cassette for replacing the first cassette based on the location and the one or more denominations of bills contained within the first cassette such that the second cassette is configured to receive and dispense bills of a similar denomination to the first cassette; and transmit a notification to a remote computing device, the notification indicating that the first fill level of the first cassette does not satisfy the threshold and identifying the second cassette.
Claim 15 recites, in part, A system comprising: at least one processing circuit having one or more processors coupled to machine readable storage media having instructions stored therein that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the at least one processing circuit to: receive cassette data from a first cassette of a plurality of cassettes, the cassette data including a fill level of the first cassette acquired by a sensor associated with the first cassette, the sensor configured to detect a physical dimension of a stack of bills within the first cassette, the fill level based on the physical dimension; determine, based on the cassette data, (i) a location of the first cassette based on location data associated with the first cassette, the location data received by a wireless transceiver including a cellular transceiver associated with the first cassette, the cellular transceiver configured to receive location information for the first cassette from one or more nearby cellular towers, and (ii) that a fill level of the first cassette does not satisfy a threshold, and (iii) one or more denominations of bills contained within the first cassette; identify a second cassette for replacing the first cassette based on the location of the first cassette and the one or more denominations of bills contained within the first cassette; and transmit a notification to a remote computing device, the notification indicating that the fill level of the first cassette does not satisfy the threshold and identifying the second cassette.
These limitations are directed to concept of determining amounts/levels of bills available for transactions. Hence, it is directed to commercial interactions which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a cassette, a sensor, a memory, a processing circuit, a processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, a remote computing device, one of a global positioning systems recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, identifying and transmitting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements such as cassettes (ATMs TRC, TCD,, etc.) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. They are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 1, 9 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device helps for managing currency cassettes is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim 2, 7, 8, 10 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recite an abstract idea of storing the location, determining a threshold levels, and determining fill level fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims recite generic components such as store level of cassette and fill level and first and second location. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (one or more processors, processing circuit, cassette, a database) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 3,11 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recite additional elements such as location and time intervals of refilling the cassette fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims recite generic components such as time intervals. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (cassette, a database) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 4, 12 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recite generating an audit log which comprises data regarding manipulation fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims recite generic components such as audit log. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (processing circuit, cassette, a database) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 13 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recite identifying a second cassette fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims recite generic components such as audit log. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (processing circuit, cassette, a database) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 5, 10, 17, 19 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) recite additional elements such as universal cassette, second cassette with second location, cassettes at different locations fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims recite generic components such as location of cassettes. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (cassette, a database, an ATM, a teller station) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 6, 14, 20 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims recite generic components such as a teller location. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (cassette, a database, an ATM, a teller station) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 16 have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims recite generic components such as wireless transceiver or RFID transmitter. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements (cassette, a database, wireless transreceiver or RFID) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angus et al. (US 2014/0144976 A1) in view of in further view of LI (US 2014/0102849 A1) in further view of Jones et al. (US 9,141,876 B1) in further view of Warmulla (US 2020/0024014 A1).
Claims 1, 9 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, is disclosed: Angus teaches: (Currently Amended) A computing system comprising: at least one processing circuit having one or more processors coupled to machine readable storage media having instructions stored therein that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the at least one processing circuit to: receive cassette data from a first cassette of a plurality of cassettes,. (Angus, par. [0057]-[0058]);
determine, based on the cassette data, (i) a location of the first cassette based on location data associated with the first cassette (see at least par. [0107] “. . . Aptly, the order and serial number and denomination of each currency note is known and is programmed onto the memory of the NFC tag associated with the cassette. The data set associated with the cassette (i.e. its unique ID) may optionally be in the tag in a remote data store connected via a network (such as the internet or the like) or both. A process to sync data held in two or more locations can optionally be utilized. This information is subsequently delivered to a financial institution as part of a cash in transit operation . . .”), the location data received by a wireless transceiver associated with the first cassette, (see at least par. [0118] “. . . NFC technology is utilized to identify currency and containers for the currency as it is moved around a bank branch or system. The NFC technology can be used to uniquely identify a cassette as well as read information stored in the NFC tag on the cassette. This enables tracking of cassettes/cash using embedded hardware and/or handheld readers and/or desktop readers along with NFC tag technology.. . .”) Interpretation: a first cassette’s location could be , and (iii) one or more denominations of bills contained within the first cassette (par. [0101] “. . . . Basic storage tags allow storage of note types denomination, exponent details, note sizes, thresholds, as well as cassette ID . . .”) & [0112] “. . . At step S610 a requisite number of currency notes having a desired denomination are filled into the cassette . . .”);
identify a second cassette (Angus, see at least par. [0107] “. . . . The transported cassettes are then loaded into an automated bank vault or other such terminal which can hold multiple cassettes. For example, shown in FIG. 3 is an ATM 300 able to hold four currency cassettes. Aptly, each currency cassette 100.sub.0 . . . 3 stores a stack of notes having a pre-determined currency denomination . . .”) Interpretation: second cassette could correspond to cassette 100.sub. 1 since 100.sub. 0 corresponds to the first cassette; for replacing the first cassette based on the location and the one or more denominations of bills contained within the first cassette such that the second cassette is configured to receive and dispense bills of a similar denomination to the first cassette (Angus, see at least par. [0114] “. . . The authorized person at this point in time may also remove empty cassettes or cassettes which are partially empty or too full or too empty . . .”)
Angus does not disclose the following; however, Li teaches:
(ii) that a fill level of the first cassette does not satisfy a threshold (Li, see at least par. [0007] “. . . determining the denomination of the bills; storing bills equal to and below a threshold denomination in a first storage compartment . . .”),
and transmit a notification to a remote computing device, the notification indicating that the first fill level of the first cassette does not satisfy the threshold and identifying the second cassette (Li, see at least par. [0006] “. . . The first section is further divided into discrete money acceptors; a first acceptor for coins, a second for large denomination bills, that records the storing of such bills within a secure vault, and a third acceptor for small bills that are to be retained within the Cash Server for subsequent use to replenish the Change Terminal. . . .”) Interpretation: first cassette corresponds to “Change terminal”, second cassette corresponds to either a first acceptor or “second acceptor” which would replenish the dispensed bills or coins & see at least par. [0007] “. . . determining the denomination of the bills; storing bills equal to and below a threshold denomination in a first storage compartment . . .” & see at least par. [0017] “. . . accumulated balance of the funds contained within the secure safe or vault 126, is recorded. The balance of funds in the secure safe is tracked in real-time and periodically transmitted via the LinkHost 134 or alternative communications channel to both the back office 130 and/or the financial institution 136 . . .”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Angus by transmitting a notification to indicate first cassette does not satisfy threshold as taught by Li, because modifying Angus using elements taught by Li helps to improve refilling low currency cassette among the terminals system (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Angus in view of Li does not disclose the following; however, Jones teaches:
the wireless transceiver comprising a cellular transceiver configured to receive location information for the first cassette from one or more nearby cellular towers (Jones, see at least Col. 101 “. . . and/or a cellular data connection (e.g., the customer's cell phone is on a cellular network connected to a cellular tower proximate to the customer's site) . . .” & Col. 102 “. . . according to some embodiments, the data is transmitted to the bank wirelessly, such as, for example, using a Wi-Fi connection, a cellular data connection, and/or a hard-wired connection (e.g., a computer coupled directly to the Internet). According to some embodiments, the device 44 is communicatively coupled to a cell phone or smartphone via a wired connection to the phone such as via a wired connection to an earphone jack of the phone. According to some embodiments, the document imaging device 44 itself comprises a wireless communication device such as a cellular communication device and the device 44 sends the deposit transaction data to a banking network for settlement such as via a cell phone network.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Angus in view of Li by using a GPS system as taught by Jones, because modifying Angus in view of Li using elements taught by Li helps to detect the location of the device using nearby data (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Angus in view of Li in further of Jones does not disclose the following; however, Warmulla teaches:
the cassette data including a fill level of the first cassette acquired by a sensor associated with the first cassette, the sensor configured to detect a physical dimension of a stack of bills within the first cassette (Warmulla (US 2020/0024014 A1), see at least par. [0118] “FIG. 11 shows, in a), a pivotable cassette carrier 21′ which is designed to receive a stack S of folded-together transport packaging 100 lying one on top of the other (which are delivered as a stack S on a conventional pallet, see FIG. 11b) with a container composed of an inclined base 210 and two side walls 211 and a rear wall 212. At the open side, the highest point of the inclined base 210, the cassette carrier 21′ has an articulated connection 213, by means of which the inclined base 210 is connected to a pallet base 214. To receive a stack S, the container is pivoted such that the inclined base 210 is arranged upright, as can be seen in FIG. 11b). As shown in FIG. 11c), the stack S is received between the side walls 211, whereupon the container is pivoted back, such that the transport packagings 100 of the stack S are received upright in the container, as can be seen in FIG. 11d). Here, the approximately vertically arranged transport packagings 100 can, owing to the inclination of the inclined base 210, be supported on the rear wall 212, such that the stack S is also stabilized in this orientation in order to permit an automatic removal, by machine, of the foremost transport packaging 100 by means of an isolating or gripper apparatus. The pivotable cassette carrier 21′ can be moved with the pallet base 214 and is equipped with a suitable sensor arrangement, which is connected to the control apparatus of the installation such that the latter can detect and control the fill level and position of the respective cassette carrier. The control apparatus can thus, when a cassette carrier has been emptied, transport the order-picking containers that are to be packaged to a different packing location whilst the cassette carrier is equipped with a new stack of packagings . . .”), the fill level based on the physical dimension (see at least par. [0117] “. . . it may be preferable for the transport packagings 100 to differ only in terms of their height, but for the format of the base area to remain identical, in order to simplify not only the setting-up of the transport packaging 100 in the apparatus 21—it is thus possible for order-picking containers 1 of a uniform size to be used. Only the transport packaging 100 is, with regard to its height, selected with respect to the order size, wherein the cross-sectional shapes/base areas of order-picking container 1 and transport packaging 100 are configured correspondingly.”) the physical dimension for detecting fill level is based on height of the stack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones by using sensor to detect fill level as taught by Warmulla, because modifying Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones using elements taught by Warmulla helps to arrange and package container or cassette (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 15 is taught: Angus teaches: A computing system comprising: at least one processing circuit having one or more processors coupled to machine readable storage media having instructions stored therein that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the at least one processing circuit to: receive cassette data from a first cassette of a plurality of cassettes (Angus, par. [0057]-[0058]);
determine, based on the cassette data, (i) a location of the cassette based on location data associated with the first cassette (see at least par. [0107] “. . . Aptly, the order and serial number and denomination of each currency note is known and is programmed onto the memory of the NFC tag associated with the cassette. The data set associated with the cassette (i.e. its unique ID) may optionally be in the tag in a remote data store connected via a network (such as the internet or the like) or both. A process to sync data held in two or more locations can optionally be utilized. This information is subsequently delivered to a financial institution as part of a cash in transit operation . . .”), the location data received by a wireless transceiver associated with the first cassette (see at least par. [0118] “. . . NFC technology is utilized to identify currency and containers for the currency as it is moved around a bank branch or system. The NFC technology can be used to uniquely identify a cassette as well as read information stored in the NFC tag on the cassette. This enables tracking of cassettes/cash using embedded hardware and/or handheld readers and/or desktop readers along with NFC tag technology.. . .”) Interpretation: a first cassette’s location could be, and (iii) one or more denominations of bills contained within the first cassette (par. [0101] “. . . . Basic storage tags allow storage of note types denomination, exponent details, note sizes, thresholds, as well as cassette ID . . .”) & [0112] “. . . At step S610 a requisite number of currency notes having a desired denomination are filled into the cassette . . .”);
identify a second cassette (Angus, see at least par. [0107] “. . . . The transported cassettes are then loaded into an automated bank vault or other such terminal which can hold multiple cassettes. For example, shown in FIG. 3 is an ATM 300 able to hold four currency cassettes. Aptly, each currency cassette 100.sub.0 . . . 3 stores a stack of notes having a pre-determined currency denomination . . .”) Interpretation: second cassette could correspond to cassette 100.sub. 1 since 100.sub. 0 corresponds to the first cassette; for replacing the first cassette based on the location and the one or more denominations of bills contained within the first cassette such that the second cassette is configured to receive and dispense bills of a similar denomination to the first cassette (Angus, see at least par. [0114] “. . . The authorized person at this point in time may also remove empty cassettes or cassettes which are partially empty or too full or too empty . . .”)
Angus does not disclose the following; however, Li teaches:
(ii) that a fill level of the first cassette does not satisfy a threshold (Li, see at least par. [0007] “. . . determining the denomination of the bills; storing bills equal to and below a threshold denomination in a first storage compartment . . .”),
and transmit a notification to a remote computing device, the notification indicating that the first fill level of the first cassette does not satisfy the threshold and identifying the second cassette (Li, see at least par. [0006] “. . . The first section is further divided into discrete money acceptors; a first acceptor for coins, a second for large denomination bills, that records the storing of such bills within a secure vault, and a third acceptor for small bills that are to be retained within the Cash Server for subsequent use to replenish the Change Terminal. . . .”) Interpretation: first cassette corresponds to “Change terminal”, second cassette corresponds to either a first acceptor or “second acceptor” which would replenish the dispensed bills or coins & see at least par. [0007] “. . . determining the denomination of the bills; storing bills equal to and below a threshold denomination in a first storage compartment . . .” & see at least par. [0017] “. . . accumulated balance of the funds contained within the secure safe or vault 126, is recorded. The balance of funds in the secure safe is tracked in real-time and periodically transmitted via the LinkHost 134 or alternative communications channel to both the back office 130 and/or the financial institution 136 . . .”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Angus by transmitting a notification to indicate first cassette does not satisfy threshold as taught by Li, because modifying Angus using elements taught by Li helps to improve refilling low currency cassette among the terminals system (abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Angus in view of Li does not disclose the following; however, Jones teaches:
the location data received by a wireless transceiver including associated with the first cassette, the cellular transceiver configured to receive location information for the first cassette from one or more nearby cellular towers (Jones, see at least Col. 101 “. . . and/or a cellular data connection (e.g., the customer's cell phone is on a cellular network connected to a cellular tower proximate to the customer's site) . . .” & Col. 102 “. . . according to some embodiments, the data is transmitted to the bank wirelessly, such as, for example, using a Wi-Fi connection, a cellular data connection, and/or a hard-wired connection (e.g., a computer coupled directly to the Internet). According to some embodiments, the device 44 is communicatively coupled to a cell phone or smartphone via a wired connection to the phone such as via a wired connection to an earphone jack of the phone. According to some embodiments, the document imaging device 44 itself comprises a wireless communication device such as a cellular communication device and the device 44 sends the deposit transaction data to a banking network for settlement such as via a cell phone network.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Angus in view of Li by using a GPS system as taught by Jones, because modifying Angus in view of Li using elements taught by Li helps to detect the location of the device using nearby data (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Angus in view of Li in further of Jones does not disclose the following; however, Warmulla teaches:
the cassette data including a fill level of the first cassette acquired by a sensor associated with the first cassette, the sensor configured to detect a physical dimension of a stack of bills within the first cassette (Warmulla, see at least par. [0118] “FIG. 11 shows, in a), a pivotable cassette carrier 21′ which is designed to receive a stack S of folded-together transport packagings 100 lying one on top of the other (which are delivered as a stack S on a conventional pallet, see FIG. 11b) with a container composed of an inclined base 210 and two side walls 211 and a rear wall 212. At the open side, the highest point of the inclined base 210, the cassette carrier 21′ has an articulated connection 213, by means of which the inclined base 210 is connected to a pallet base 214. To receive a stack S, the container is pivoted such that the inclined base 210 is arranged upright, as can be seen in FIG. 11b). As shown in FIG. 11c), the stack S is received between the side walls 211, whereupon the container is pivoted back, such that the transport packagings 100 of the stack S are received upright in the container, as can be seen in FIG. 11d). Here, the approximately vertically arranged transport packagings 100 can, owing to the inclination of the inclined base 210, be supported on the rear wall 212, such that the stack S is also stabilized in this orientation in order to permit an automatic removal, by machine, of the foremost transport packaging 100 by means of an isolating or gripper apparatus. The pivotable cassette carrier 21′ can be moved with the pallet base 214 and is equipped with a suitable sensor arrangement, which is connected to the control apparatus of the installation such that the latter can detect and control the fill level and position of the respective cassette carrier. The control apparatus can thus, when a cassette carrier has been emptied, transport the order-picking containers that are to be packaged to a different packing location whilst the cassette carrier is equipped with a new stack of packagings . . .”), the fill level based on the physical dimension (see at least par. [0117] “. . . it may be preferable for the transport packagings 100 to differ only in terms of their height, but for the format of the base area to remain identical, in order to simplify not only the setting-up of the transport packaging 100 in the apparatus 21—it is thus possible for order-picking containers 1 of a uniform size to be used. Only the transport packaging 100 is, with regard to its height, selected with respect to the order size, wherein the cross-sectional shapes/base areas of order-picking container 1 and transport packaging 100 are configured correspondingly.”) the physical dimension for detecting fill level is based on height of the stack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones by using sensor to detect fill level as taught by Warmulla, because modifying Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones using elements taught by Warmulla helps to arrange and package container or cassette (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claims 2 and 10 are grouped together: Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla teaches claim 2, for instance: The computing system of claim 1. Angus further teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the at least one processing circuit to store the location and the fill level of the first cassette in a database (Angus, see at least par. [0112] “. . . FIG. 6 helps illustrate the filling of the cassette at a secure location and the use of an NFC tag and unique ID to update information about the cassette either storing the information within the NFC tag on the cassette and/or via the internet 570 to the remote server 580 . . .”) The info is stored on a server (which a database could be a subset of that server) .
Claims 3 and 11 are grouped together: Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla teaches the computing system of claim 2. Angus further teaches: wherein the location and the fill level of the first cassette is stored in the database at one or more time intervals (Angus, see at least par. [0112] “. . . A record associated with each cassette and which is held at the server node is continually updated or at least updated at pre-determined time intervals . . .”) .
Claims 4 and 12 are grouped together: Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla teaches the computing system of claim 1. Angus further teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the at least one processing circuit to generate an audit log, and wherein the audit log comprises data regarding a manipulation of the first cassette by a user (angus, par. [0105]).
Claims 5 and 13 are grouped together: Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla teaches Claim 5:the computing system of claim 1. Angus further teaches: wherein the second cassette is identified based on a second location of the second cassette (Angus, see at least par. [0107] “. . . . A process to sync data held in two or more locations can optionally be utilized. This information is subsequently delivered to a financial institution as part of a cash in transit operation. The transported cassettes are then loaded into an automated bank vault or other such terminal which can hold multiple cassettes . . .”) second cassette could correspond to one of the cassettes utilized from other locations for replenishment purpose.
Claims 6 and 14 are grouped together: Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla teaches Claim 6, for instance. Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones teaches: The computing system of claim 1. Angus further teaches: wherein the first cassette is located in an ATM and the second cassette is located at a teller station (see at least par. [0111] “. . . The system 500 also includes one or more ATMs 300. These ATMs may be freestanding terminals provided at various locations and one or more of the ATMs themselves may be located in a respective bank branch 510 . . .”) the cassettes could be managed by the cash management system and moved from one location such as a bank to a stand-alone terminal.
Claim 7: Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla teaches: the computing system of claim 1. However, Li further teaches: wherein the fill level of the first cassette is at or above a first threshold and a second fill level of the second cassette is at or below a second threshold, different than the first threshold (Li, see at least par. [0005] “. . . a large denomination bill acceptor associated with said second compartment for receiving bills above the threshold bill denomination, recording (the coin and bill changes also recorded, but are kept separately) the "deposit" of such bills, and storing the bills within an enclosure in said second compartment, said enclosure being a sealable enclosure (e.g., cassette or bag); a change terminal for dispensing chance for a point of sale transaction in the form of bills equal to or below the threshold bill denomination and coins . . .”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Angus by transmitting a notification to indicate first cassette does not satisfy threshold as taught by Li, because modifying Angus using elements taught by Li helps to improve refilling low currency cassette among the terminals system. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 8. Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla teaches the computing system of claim 1. However, Li further teaches: The computing system of claim 1, wherein the fill level of the first cassette is at or below a first threshold and a second fill level of the second cassette is at or above a second threshold, different than the first threshold (Li, see at least par. [0007] “. . . storing bills equal to and below a threshold denomination in a first storage compartment; storing, and counting, bills above a threshold denomination in a second secure compartment . . .”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Angus by transmitting a notification to indicate first cassette does not satisfy threshold as taught by Li, because modifying Angus using elements taught by Li helps to improve refilling low currency cassette among the terminals system. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 17 is taught: Angus in view of LI in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla teaches The system of claim 15. Angus further teaches: wherein the first cassette is a universal cassette configured for use in both an ATM and a teller station (Angus, par. [0112]) a cassette is universal and could be used at different locations.
Claim 19 is taught: Angus in view of LI in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla teaches: The system of claim 15. Angus further teaches: wherein the second cassette is identified based on a second location of the second cassette (par. [0011]) each cassette associated with a location is identified by the system, it could be at location 1 or 2 and so forth.
Claim 20 is taught: Angus in view of LI in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla teaches: the system of claim 15. Angus further teaches: wherein the first cassette is located in an ATM and the second cassette is located at a teller station (Angus, par. [0107] “ A process to sync data held in two or more locations can optionally be utilized. This information is subsequently delivered to a financial institution as part of a cash in transit operation. The transported cassettes are then loaded into an automated bank vault or other such terminal which can hold multiple cassettes . . .”) One cassette is at a bank vault and other cassette could be at other terminals.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angus et al. (US 2014/0144976 A1) in view of in further view of LI (US 2014/0102849 A1) in further view of Jones et al. (US 9,141,876 B1) in further view of Warmulla (US 2020/0024014 A1) in further view of Bosch (US 2013/0232064 A1).
Claim 16 is disclosed: Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla teaches: the system of claim 15, further comprising the first cassette and the second cassette. However, Bosch teaches: wherein the first cassette comprises a radio-frequency identification (RFID) transmitter (Bosch, see at least par. [0152] “. . . A wireless connection may use low or high powered electromagnetic waves to transmit data using any wireless protocol, such as Bluetooth.TM., IEEE 802.11b (or other Wi-Fi standards), infrared data association (IrDa), or radio frequency identification (RFID), for example. According to one embodiment, the CRD 1100 may communicate (e.g., via the network interface 1165) with the computer system of the financial institution 350 . . .”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones by using RFID as taught by Bosch, because modifying Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla using elements taught by Bosch helps to improve refilling low currency cassette among the terminals system. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angus et al. (US 2014/0144976 A1) in view of in further view of LI (US 2014/0102849 A1) in further view of Jones et al. (US 9,141,876 B1) in further view of Warmulla (US 2020/0024014 A1) in further view of Turocy, (WO 2015/179854 A1).
Claim 18 is disclosed: Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla teaches: The system of claim 15, further comprising the first cassette and the second cassette. However, Turocy teaches: wherein the cassette comprises a rechargeable battery, and wherein the first data includes a battery level of the rechargeable battery (Turocy, see at least par. [0057] “. . . cassette information such as currency type 802, country of origin and denomination 804 is displayed as programmed and remains so until re-programmed by operation of the wireless application. The display as set by the program remains in that state whether the cassette is installed or not installed in an ATM. Additional information and/graphics or symbols which may be presented by the display include but are not limited to a battery power level indicator icon or symbol . . .”) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones by using a rechargeable battery as taught by Turocy, because modifying Angus in view of Li in further view of Jones in further view of Warmulla using elements taught by Turocy helps to monitoring the currency cassette. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 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, Mike W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693