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 § 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.
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) 2-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumanelli (US 20210002944) in view of Abe et al. (US 20040007165).
Fumanelli teaches:
A valuable media cassette, comprising:
a storage base configured to store valuable media (volume 1c in container 1);
a cover (1b/ 2b/ 20) operatively coupled to the storage base, the cover comprising:
a blast energy collection plate with a plurality of apertures each surrounded by serrated teeth (lower portion 2a has inward facing cutting elements for container 22 per paragraph [0037]+); and
a fluid filled bag positioned in relation to the blast energy collection plate such that portions of the fluid filled bag extend through the apertures and are in contact with the serrated teeth (FIG. 3+ and container 2/ 22/ 28, and while silent to a bag, a bag for ink is routine and conventional in the art and an obvious expedient to hold and transport ink for marking bills when punctured);
wherein the blast energy collection plate is adapted to encase and hold the fluid filled bag, and the serrated teeth are adapted to puncture the fluid filled bag upon encountering a force sufficient to cause the ink container to rupture and disperse fluid onto the valuable media (paragraph [0070]+ teaches that rupture against the lower portion of the container is facilitated by cutting elements (inward facing) and rupture elements that rupture to cut the container and mark the banknotes).
Fumanelli teaches cutting elements but not specifically serrated teeth surrounding. The Examiner notes that given a teaching of cutting elements, using serrated teeth would have been an obvious expedient for specific cutting/ puncturing improvement.
Nonetheless, Abe et al. teaches such limitations via knife edge 69 that correspond to holes (FIG. 4 at 66, 69), interpreted as surrounding. The Examiner notes that the addition of more knife edges would have been an obvious expedient for more cutting power.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to have an improved cutting, where serrated knife/ cutting is an obvious expedient for expected results.
Re the newly added limtaitons to claim 2 that adjustable spacers engage the bag ends on a surface of the cover, the Examiner notes that Abe et al. teaches adjustable spacers at 120/121 and Robson teaches adjustable spacers at 106/60 and 50. The Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to have an adjustable way to secure the bag in a desired orientation and to support the length by placing spacers at the ends.
Re the newly added limitation that the blast plate harnesses energy causing the teeth to displace and rupture the bag, as discussed above, the inward cutting elements are interpreted to displace and rupture the bag by its puncturing (see paragraph [0052]+). When a shockwave reaches the containers they are ruptured, facilitated by the cutting elements to distribute force over the container and rupturing/ displacing the container in the process. Abe et al. teaches cutting with teeth that is interpreted as displacing and rupturing the bag, as well, as discussed above.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to help secure the bag against structure to hold it in a desired position/ orientation.
Re claim 3, paragraph [0004]+ teaches indelible ink, obviating the use for staining/ marking as known in the art.
Re claim 4 FIG. 7+ is intpereted to show the cassette, such as to be inserted in an ATM/ transaction device.
Re claim 6, Abe et al. teaches such limitations 86 and guided window openings 84 to direct ink flow.
Re claim 7, claim 1 teaches an ATM.
Re claim 8, Abe et al. teaches such limitations with knife edges 69, part of the cover plate. It would have been obvious to select a metal material as one of a plurality of known materials for its expected durability and resistance to damage for secure applications.
Re claim 9, Abe et al. teaches the use of spaces at 120 for compression/ alignment purpose.
Re claim 10, FIG. 3 teaches 2 bags. Alignment with the apertures would have been obvious for dispersion of fluids.
Re claim 12, paragraph [0070]+ teaches a shockwave and explosion to erupt and break the bag.
Re claim 13, the limitations have been discussed above including an ATM/ transaction device. Though silent to teaching a depository for storage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for an ATM to include deposit storage for deposit functions which are routine and conventional at ATM machine.
Re the newly added limitations of dispersion windows defined by spaced bars, the Examiner notes that Fumanelli teaches a plurality of dispersion windows separated by supporting structure of the cover (FIG. 4A+). Though silent to a grid orientation (openings with bars) the Examiner notes that it would have been within the ordinary skill in the art to have a grid based set of openings as one of a plurality of possible orientations of openings, based on design variation. Nonetheless, Abe et al. teaches the use of grids (windows and bars) in FIG. 4. Prior to the effective fling date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to have a grid (openings with bars) arrangement for an alternative arrangement based on system constraints, design variations, realizing that the orientation/ shape alternatives are within the ordinary skill in the art, especially as Fumanelli teaches a repeating pattern of openings.
Re the newly added limitations that the blast energy collection mechanism harnesses blast energy causing the teeth to displace and rupture the container when energy is released into the collection mechanism, the Examiner notes that when a blast occurs the energy released causes the teeth to rupture the container, which causes ink release, as discussed above re claim 2.
Re claim 14, though silent to a preferred material being paint corrosion resistant, as a colored ink/ dye is contained, it would have been obvious to select a suitable material as an obvious expedient to successfully store the ink without it leaking prematurely.
Re claim 15, though silent to a module to recycle depositing cash, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious for an ATM to do so in order to provide cash for deposits and withdraws as is routine and conventional in the art.
Re claim 17, as discussed above, the cover seals the cassette shut by closing / covering the cassette.
Re claim 18, though silent to the cassette being configured to fit into different SST models, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to have a compatible cassette for more acceptance into systems.
Re claim 20, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 2 re the spacers, and wherein the serrates apertures displaced and rupture the bags upon the energy from a blast.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumanelli/ Abe et al., as discussed above, in view of Smet et al. (US 20140354740).
Re claim 5, the teachings of Fumanelli have been discussed above but are silent to vacuum packed fluid bags.
Smet at al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0139]+ teaching vacuum sealed ink bags for reducing space).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to prevent drying, reduce space requirements, etc.
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumanelli/ Abe et al., as discussed above, in view of Yan (US 20120209243).
Re claim 11, the teachings of Fumanelli have been discussed above but are silent to expiration indicator for the bag.
Yan teaches a fluid cartridge 45 with a label with an expiration data (paragraph [0099]+).
Re claim 16, the teachings of Fumanelli/ Abe et al. have been discussed above but are silent to a warning label.
Yan teaches a fluid cartridge with a label.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to label fluid containers, for information providing reasons, noting that the type of information is a matter of nonfunctional descriptive material that is an obvious matter of design variation to provide specific information, and printed matter not functionally related to the substrate is not patentably distinguishing.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-10, 12-15, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robson (US 20150191960) in view of Abe et al., as discussed above, and Fumanelli, as discussed above.
Robson teaches:
A valuable media cassette, comprising:
a storage base configured to store valuable media (banknotes 38 in holder 34);
a cover (50) operatively coupled to the storage base, the cover comprising:
a blast energy collection plate with a plurality of apertures each and puncture elements (FIG. 5A, 100); and
a fluid filled bag positioned in relation to the blast energy collection plate such that portions of the fluid filled bag extend through the apertures and are in contact with puncture elements (container 70, and while silent to a bag, a bag for ink is routine and conventional in the art and an obvious expedient to hold and transport ink for marking bills when punctured);
wherein the blast energy collection plate is adapted to encase and hold the fluid filled bag, and the puncture elements are adapted to puncture the container upon encountering a force sufficient to cause the fluid filled bag to rupture and disperse fluid onto the valuable media (FIG. 5A ) wherein when force is applied, the body of the container 70 is urged to 52 which penetrates. Energy causes movement which causes the rupturing.
Robson is silent to serrated teeth surrounding the apertures.
Nonetheless, Abe et al. teaches such limitations via knife edge 69 that correspond to holes (FIG. 4 at 66, 69).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to have an improved cutting, where serrated knife/ cutting is an obvious expedient for expected results, wherein a cutting at each aperture would have provided rupture means for each hole to provide consistent drainage over an area.
Though Robson is silent to a cassette, Robson teaches banknotes 38 stored and an ATM. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a cassette as a traditional means of note storage in an ATM.
Nonetheless, Fumanelli teaches such limitations as discussed above, wherein the combination is motivated by organized, modular, and secure storage in ATM machines. Fumanelli as teaches bags for convenience, low cost ink storage solutions, which would have been one of a plurality of known alternatives to the container of Robson, motivated by system constraints (material strength, cost, ease of use, etc.).
Re the newly added limtaiton that adjustable spacers engage the bag ends on a surface of the cover, this has been discussed above re the other claim 2 rejection in the Office Action above. Additionally, Robson teaches spacers 60 that appear removable/ adjustable via their end tabs and the connection with fasteners 106 which are interpreted to render adjustability. The location of the connectors 60 corresponds with ends of the container/ bag for uniform support. Additionally, the use of double sided adhesive tape 50 is interpreted as adjustable spacers, and the use of 2 or more pieces at the ends would have been an obvious expedient for desired coverage (including at the ends of the bags for support).
Re the newly added limitation of a blast causing the teeth to displace and rupture, this has been discussed above re the other claim 2 rejection in the Office Action above. Additionally, Robson teaches in FIG. 2A that the container with dye has projections thereon such that when a shockwave occurs, the projections 14b press against the surface of the cover to break the dye container, thus displacing the teeth/projections in the process. This is interpreted as the displacing of the teeth/ projections to rupture the container. In an alternative embodiment, Robson at FIG. 5A teaches that the projection 52a is part of the cover 52 and during an explosion the container is urged to the surface 52 to rupture the dye container. Therefore, as both projections on the dye container itself and projections on the wall have been taught, they both teach displacing of a container and rupture of the container (puncturing causes displacement and rupturing).
Re claim 3, paragraph [0056]+ teaches permanent ink, obviating the use for staining/ marking as known in the art.
Re claim 4, Fumanelli teaches FIG. 7+ is intpereted to show the cassette, such as to be inserted in an ATM/ transaction device, wherein it would be closed when inserted.
Re claim 6, Abe et al. teaches such limitations 86 and guided window openings 84 to direct ink flow.
Re claim 7, Fumanelli at claim 1 teaches an ATM and Robson teaches ATMs (paragraph [0002]+).
Re claim 8, Abe et al. teaches such limitations with knife edges 69, part of the cover plate. It would have been obvious to select a metal material as one of a plurality of known materials for its expected durability and resistance to damage for secure applications.
Re claim 9, Abe et al. teaches the use of spacers at 120 for compression/ alignment purpose and Robson teaches fasteners 106 as spacers that are adjustable.
Re claim 10, Robson teaches two containers 10. FIG. 3 of Fumanelli teaches 2 bags. Alignment with the apertures would have been obvious for dispersion of fluids.
Re claim 12, Robson teaches at paragraph [0030]+ explosions/ shocks and at paragraph [0070]+ Fumanelli teaches a shockwave and explosion to erupt and break the bag.
Re claim 13, the limitations have been discussed above including an ATM/ transaction device. Though silent to teaching a depository for storage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for an ATM to include deposit storage for deposit functions which are routine and conventional at ATM machine.
Re the newly added limitations of dispersion windows defined by spaced bars, FIG. 5 shows dispersion windows/ opening separated by bars. Also, the Examiner notes that Fumanelli teaches a plurality of dispersion windows separated by supporting structure of the cover (FIG. 4A+). Though silent to a grid orientation (openings with bars) the Examiner notes that it would have been within the ordinary skill in the art to have a grid based set of openings as one oif a plurality of possible orientations of openings, based on design variation. Nonetheless, Abe et al. teaches the use of grids (windows and bars) in FIG. 4. Prior to the effective fling date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to have a grid (openings with bars) arrangement for an alternative arrangement based on system constraints, design variations, realizing that the orientation/ shape alternatives are within the ordinary skill in the art, especially as Robson teaches openings defined by spaced bars/ material between them.
Re the newly added limitations that the blast energy collection mechanism harnesses blast energy causing the teeth to displace and rupture the container when energy is released into the collection mechanism, the Examiner notes that when a blast occurs the energy released causes the teeth to rupture the container, which causes ink release, as discussed above re claim 2.
Re claim 14, though silent to a preferred material being paint corrosion resistant, as a colored ink/ dye is contained, it would have been obvious to select a suitable material as an obvious expedient to successfully store the ink without it leaking prematurely.
Re claim 15, though silent to a module to recycle depositing cash, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious for an ATM to do so in order to provide cash for deposits and withdraws as is routine and conventional in the art.
Re claim 17, as discussed above, the cover seals the cassette shut by closing / covering the cassette.
Re claim 18, though silent to the cassette being configured to fit into different SST models, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to have a compatible cassette for more acceptance into systems.
Re claim 19, FIG. 3+ shows plural plates.
Re claim 20, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 2 re the spacers, and wherein the serrates apertures displaced and rupture the bags upon the energy from a blast.
Re claim 21, FIG. 4+ teaches such limitations.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robson/ Abe et al/. Fumanelli, as discussed above, in view of Smet et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 5, the teachings of Robson/ Abe et al./ Fumanelli have been discussed above but are silent to vacuum packed fluid bags.
Smet at al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0139]+ teaching vacuum sealed ink bags for reducing space).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to prevent drying, reduce space requirements, etc.
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robson/ Abe et al/. Fumanelli, as discussed above, in view of Yan, as discussed above.
Re claim 11, the teachings of Robson/ Abe et al./ Fumanelli have been discussed above but are silent to expiration indicator for the bag.
Yan teaches a fluid cartridge 45 with a label with an expiration data (paragraph [0099]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to enable replacement of the bag when it has expired, to permit proper functioning.
Re claim 16, the teachings of Robson/ Abe et al./ Fumanelli have been discussed above but are silent to a warning label.
Yan teaches a fluid cartridge with a label, as discussed above.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to label fluid containers, for information providing reasons, noting that the type of information is a matter of nonfunctional descriptive material that is an obvious matter of design variation to provide specific information, and printed matter not functionally related to the substrate is not patentably distinguishing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the rejection above.
Re the Applicants argument that the prior art does not teach adjustable spacers, the Examiner notes that a specific structure of the spacers and their adjustability has not been defined, and a plurality of spacers have been taught in the prior art above. Spacers absent a specific unique structural/ functional recitation that is separate from just spacing/ securing is routine and conventional in the art for expected results to hold
Re the Applicants argument that the prior art does not teach the teeth displace and rupture the bag, the Examiner contends that the bag/ container ruptures and displaces when an explosion occurs and the container is ruptured.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876