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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/13/2024, 2/11/2024, 5/22/2025 and 12/8/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bachmann (EP1575002, submitted by applicant in an IDS).
As to claims 1, Bachmann teaches a banknote image processing device comprising: a storage unit that stores an image of a normal banknote therein; and a processor that performs pseudo-damage processing that imitates damage caused on the normal banknote, on the image (see abstract and para0031,0037,0046:Figure 1 shows a block diagram of the method according to the invention. A reference 1, here a bank note is scanned in a step scanning 5 to generate a reference dataset 2 which is electronically stored to a reference library 3. Typically the reference bank note is a real and new bank note that has no defects and no print irregularities. From a particular reference dataset 2 that is typically taken from the reference library 3 or that may also be taken directly from the scanning device, several electronic datasets 4 are generated in a step defect simulation 6 and stored in a database 7. Each electronic dataset 4 thereby is a representation of a virtual bank note that has no, one or several defects. For simulating a defective bank note, the defect simulation 6 is based on a priori knowledge 8 that is incorporated in the simulation algorithms.
Since the basic processes in the development of geometrical defects such as for example folds, dog-ears or cut-to-print variations are relatively simple, these defects are directly modelled..
Fig. 5 and 6 show a plurality of different defects that can be simulated according to the invention. The defects can be classified into different defect types: print irregularities such as for example cut-to-print and print-to-print variations, geometrical defects such as for example dog ears, holes, frayed margins and different kinds of folds, global degradations such as for example abrasion, crumpling or homogeneous soil and local degradations such as for example partial soil (stain) or margin soil. In the following paragraphs, the various defects and their simulation are discussed).
As to claim 2, Bachmann teaches the banknote image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor performs hole processing on the image as the damage processing (para 0046).
As to claim 3, Bachmann teaches the banknote image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor performs cutting processing on the image as the damage processing (para 0046).
As to claim 4, Bachmann teaches the banknote image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor performs tearing processing on the image as the damage processing (para 0046).
As to claim 5, Bachmann teaches the banknote image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor performs corner folding processing on the image as the damage processing (para 0046).
As to claim 6, Bachmann teaches the banknote image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor performs staining processing on the image as the damage processing (para 0046).
As to claim 7, Bachmann teaches the banknote image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor performs washing processing on the image as the damage processing (para 0046, 0058-0059).
As to claim 9, see rejection of claim 1, note that Bachmann teach the device for performing the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachmann (EP1575002, submitted by applicant in an IDS) in view of Su (U2018/0122174, submitted by applicant in an IDS).
Bachmann teaches the banknote image processing device according to claim 1, but is silent in adding data representing a thickness of a tape to be attached to the normal banknote to data representing a thickness of the normal banknote.
However, Su teaches to determine the fitness of a back note by detecting whether there is tape attached (para 0003, Checking the condition, the so-called fitness, of a bank note involves checking whether it meets certain criteria to be able to be put back in circulation or have to be removed from circulation. Besides the degree of soiling and wear, an important criterion here is also the presence of unwanted foreign objects, usually in the form of adhesive tape or other stickers, on the bank note). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Su to the device of Bachmann having a tape attached is also a type of defects. The system of Bachmann is to eliminate the defects of a bank note image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20160335825-A1
US-20120140791-A1
US-20030234362-A1
US-20100060921-A1
US-20190057568-A1
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT WU CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7667. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday between 8:00am – 4:00pm.
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.
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.
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614