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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
“a contact region” in Claim 1, line 3.
“a disruption configuration” in Claim 1, line 3.
“a trigger region” in Claim 1, line 5.
“a drive apparatus” in Claim 3, line 2.
“a contact element” in Claim 9, line 2.
“an upstanding element” in Claim 12, line 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3, 9, 12, 13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sesko (US 3,667,485).
Regarding Claim 1, Sesko discloses
a money item detection apparatus, i.e., farebox (10), as illustrated in figures 1-14, for example, noting that the term “money” is given it broadest reasonable interpretation of including any form of cash, i.e., coins or banknotes, for example, operable in a system comprising a money item conveyor, i.e., belts (28, 28’) and (88), as illustrated in figures 2 and 3, and as mentioned at col. 2, lines 19-col. 3, line 75, for example, wherein the money item detection apparatus (10) comprises:
a contact region, i.e., the region near fingers/protrusion of contact switches (40, 98, 104) on the conveyors (21, 30-32), as illustrated in figures 2 and 3 and as mentioned at col. 4, lines 1-31, arranged to physically interact with money items, i.e., coins (C2) and banknotes (B) as illustrated in figures 2 and 3, noting that the item worked upon by an apparatus does not carry patentable weight in an apparatus claim (see MPEP 2115), in a disruption configuration, i.e., interpreted as the pressing configuration of the fingers of switches (40, 98 and 104) onto the coins (C2) and/or the banknotes (B), on the money item conveyor (21, 30-32); and
a trigger region, i.e., the finger/protrusion area of the switches (40, 98, 104), physically connected to the contact region, i.e., the region near fingers/protrusions of contact switches (40, 98, 104), and moveable between first and second positions, i.e., noting the positions in figure 2a, 2b and 2c of the switches (40, 98, 104) between which they pivot,
wherein physical interaction between the contact region, i.e., the region near contact switches (40, 98, 104), and a money item, i.e., coin (C2) and/or banknotes (B), in the disruption configuration on the money item conveyor (21, 30-33) causes the trigger region, i.e., the finger/protrusion area of the switches (40, 98, 104), to move from the first position to the second position to halt the money item conveyor, as mentioned at col. 2, lines 42-47 and col. 3, lines 71-75, for example.
Regarding Claim 2, Sesko discloses
wherein the trigger region is configured to actuate a switch, i.e., the finger/protrusion area of the switches (40, 98, 104), when moved to the second position to prevent further motion of the money item conveyor (21, 30-33), as illustrated in figures 2 and 3.
Regarding Claim 3, Sesko discloses
wherein actuation of the switch (40, 98, 104) causes a drive apparatus, i.e., motor (M), as illustrated in figures 2 and 3, which is engaged with the money item conveyor (21, 30-33) to cease actuating the money item conveyor (21, 30-33).
Regarding Claim 9, Sesko discloses
wherein the contact region, i.e., the region near fingers/protrusion of contact switches (40, 98, 104) on the conveyors (21, 30-32), as illustrated in figures 2 and 3 and as mentioned at col. 4, lines 1-31, comprises a contact element, i.e., the finger of switches (40, 98, 104), which extends toward the money item, i.e., coin (a) or banknote (B), in the disruption configuration as the money item , i.e., coin (a) or banknote (B), approaches the detection apparatus on the money item conveyor (28, 28’) and (88).
Regarding Claim 12, Sesko discloses wherein a conveyor-side of the contact element, i.e,. coin/banknote pathway near the tip of the fingers of switches (40, 98, 104), comprises at least one channel for accommodating an upstanding element, i.e., coins (A) or banknotes (B), as illustrated in figure 8, for example, of the money item conveyor (28, 28’, 88) as the upstanding element, i.e., coins (A) or banknotes (B), passes the contact element, i.e., the fingers of switches (40, 98, 104).
Regarding Claim 13, Sesko discloses wherein the money item, i.e., coin (A) or banknote (B), in the disruption configuration is at least partially balanced on an upstanding element, i.e., the belt face, as illustrated in figures 2 and 3, of the money item conveyor (28, 28’, 88).
Regarding Claim 15, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 16, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claim 3, 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) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sesko (US 3,667,485) in view of Shibata et al (US 2019/0318564 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, Sesko teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 4, Sesko does not expressly teach wherein the switch comprises an optical link which is broken by an opaque portion of the trigger region when the trigger region moves into the second position.
Regarding Claim 4, Sesko does not expressly teach, but Shibata teaches wherein the switch, i.e., passage sensor/optical sensor (51), as mentioned at paragraph (46) and as illustrated in figure 14, for example, comprises an optical link which is broken by an opaque portion of the trigger region when the trigger region moves into the second position, as mentioned at paragraph 46, mentioning “[t]he conveying members 23 are made of a light-shielding material so that the conveying members 23 can be detected by a passage sensor (optical sensor) 51, which will be described later. If the conveying members 23 are made of a translucent material, it is preferable for the translucent material to be colored”. See also paragraphs 75, 89-92, 98 and 107, as follows.
[0089] When the controller 60 receives a stop command from the coin processing main controller 100, upon completion of the conveyance of the coin deposited via the depositing device 2, the controller 60 executes control for stopping driving the conveyor.
[0090] FIG. 21 is a flowchart illustrating the details of a control process for stopping driving the conveyor executed by the controller illustrated in FIG. 4.
[0091] In the control for stopping driving the conveyor, the controller 60 waits to receive a passage signal from the passage sensor 51 (Step S101). If the passage sensor 51 detects the passage of one of the conveying members 23, and the controller 60 receives the passage signal from the passage sensor 51 (Yes in Step S101), the controller 60 is kept standby for a predetermined time (Step S102). The predetermined time is time required for the conveying member 23 to move out of the detection area of the passage sensor 51, but in which no subsequent conveying member 23 arrives at the detection area.
[0092] If the predetermined time has elapsed (Yes in Step S102), the controller 60 sends a driving stop command to the conveyor motor 21c (Step S103), shifts the process to the beginning, and ends the current control for stopping driving the conveyor unit. As a result, the conveyor motor 21c stops driving the conveyor unit 20.
[0098] In the coin validation apparatus 1a described above, when the controller 60 receives a stop command from the coin processing main controller 100, the controller 60 stops displacing the conveyor belt 22 after a predetermined time elapses from when the passage sensor 51 has detected the passage of one of the conveying members 23. Therefore, it is possible to prevent any of the conveying members 23 from remaining in the detection area of the passage sensor 51. In this manner, when the coin deposited subsequently is conveyed, the passage sensor 51 can be prevented from making a misdetection that the conveying member 23 inside the detection area is a coin.
[0107] Furthermore, because, when the control unit receives a command for stopping the conveyor belts, the control unit stops displacing the conveyor belts after the passage detector unit has detected one of the conveying members, it can be ensured that no conveying member is inside the detection area of the passage detector unit. In this manner, when a coin deposited subsequently is conveyed, the passage detector unit can be prevented from making a misdetection that the conveying member inside the detection area is a coin, advantageously.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 4, 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 switch comprises an optical link which is broken by an opaque portion of the trigger region when the trigger region moves into the second position, as taught by Shibata, in Sesko’s money item detection apparatus for the purpose of providing additional sensor data for determining when the system should be stopped.
Regarding Claim 18, see the rejection of Claim 4, above.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 10, 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sesko (US 3,667,485) in view of Ishimatsu et al (US 7,967,125 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, 6, 10, 14, 19 and 20, Sesko teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 5, Sesko does not expressly teach wherein the contact region and the trigger region are coupled to a pivot.
Regarding Claim 5, Sesko does not expressly teach, but Ishimatsu teaches wherein the contact region, i.e., detecting element/roller bearing (64), as illustrated in figures 2a-2c, and the trigger region, i.e., light shielding portion (65), are coupled to a pivot, i.e., support shaft (63), as mentioned at col. 5, lines 38-61, for example.
Regarding Claim 5, 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 contact region and the trigger region are coupled to a pivot, as taught by Ishimatsu, in Sesko’s money item detection apparatus for the purpose of providing additional sensor data for determining when the system should be stopped as well as thickness data of a coin/banknote.
Regarding Claim 6, Sesko does not expressly teach
wherein the physical interaction between the contact region and the money item in the disruption configuration causes the trigger region to move around the pivot into the second position.
Regarding Claim 6, Sesko does not expressly teach, but Ishimatsu teaches
wherein the physical interaction between the contact region, i.e., detecting element/roller bearing (64), as illustrated in figures 2a-2c, and the money item, i.e., the coin/banknote (C, B), in the disruption configuration causes the trigger region (65) to move around the pivot (63) into the second position, as illustrated in figure 2a-2c, for example.
Regarding Claim 10, Sesko does not expressly teach
wherein a leading edge of the contact element curves directly away from a principal surface of the money item conveyor to physically interact with the money item in the disruption configuration.
Regarding Claim 10, Sesko does not expressly teach, but Ishimatsu teaches
wherein a leading edge of the contact element, i.e., roller/bearing (64), curves directly away from a principal surface of the money item conveyor (26) to physically interact with the money item (C2) in the disruption configuration, as illustrated in figures (2a-2c).
Regarding Claim 14, Sesko does not expressly teach wherein the trigger region naturally adopts the first position when not physically interacting with the money item in the disruption configuration.
Regarding Claim 14, Sesko does not expressly teach, but Ishimatsu teaches wherein the trigger region (65) naturally adopts the first position when not physically interacting with the money item (C2) in the disruption configuration, as illustrated in figures 1-4, for example.
Regarding Claim 19, see the rejection of Claim 5, above.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sesko (US 3,667,485) in view of Ishimatsu et al (US 7,967,125 B2) and further in view of Abe (JP H0772918 B2).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Sesko teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 7, Sesko does not expressly teach wherein the contact region is coupled to a first pivot and the trigger region is coupled to a second pivot.
Regarding Claim 7, Sesko does not expressly teach, but Abe teaches wherein the contact region, i.e., magnet (5), as illustrated in figures 1 and 5, for example, is coupled to a first pivot (13) and the trigger region, i.e., the shutter lever (6), is coupled to a second pivot (16).
Regarding Claim 7, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted a mechanism wherein the contact region is coupled to a first pivot and the trigger region is coupled to a second pivot, as taught by Abe, for Sesko’s single pivot mechanism in money item detection apparatus for the purpose of providing additional articulation in a smaller more compact area as well as for creating more accurate movement to adjust for contacting the coin surface as it moves past the contact sensor of the coin/banknote.
Regarding Claim 8, Sesko does not expressly teach
wherein the physical interaction between the contact region and the money item in the disruption configuration causes the contact region to move around the first pivot and the trigger region to move around the second pivot into the second position.
Regarding Claim 8, Sesko does not expressly teach, but Abe teaches
wherein the physical interaction between the contact region, i.e., the area near magnet (5), and the money item, i.e, coin (a), as illustrated in figures 1, 5 and 7, in the disruption configuration causes the contact region, i.e., the magnet support lever (4), to move around the first pivot (13), and the trigger region, i.e., shutter lever (6), to move around the second pivot (16) into the second position, as illustrated in figures 1, 5 and 7, for example.
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.
Regarding Claim 1, Ishimatsu is cited as disclosing the following.
a money item detection apparatus, i.e., deformed coin detector (41), as illustrated in figures 1 and 4, for example, operable in a system comprising a money item conveyor, i.e., flat belt (21) and transporting belts (30, 31, 32) as illustrated in figure 7 and as mentioned at col. 3, line 62-col. 4, line 19, for example, wherein the money item detection apparatus (41) comprises:
a contact region, i.e., the region near roller (22) and pulley (33) or the region near roller bearing (64), arranged to physically interact with money items, i.e., coins (C2), in a disruption configuration, i.e., interpreted as the pressing configuration of detecting element/roller (64) as illustrated in figure 2, on the money item conveyor (21, 30-32), noting the pressing of the roller (64) on the transporting face (26), as illustrated in figure 2; and
a trigger region, i.e., lever (61) with light shielding portion (65), physically connected to the contact region, i.e., near (64), and moveable between first and second positions, i.e., noting the positions in figure 2a, 2b and 2c,
wherein physical interaction between the contact region (26) and a money item, i.e., coin (C2), in the disruption configuration on the money item conveyor (21, 30-33) causes the trigger region, i.e., near roller bearing (64), to move from the first position to the second position to halt the money item conveyor (21, 30-32), as illustrated in figures 2-5, for example.
Regarding Claim 1, Umeda is cited as disclosing the following.
a money item detection apparatus, i.e., coin receiving and dispensing device (100), as illustrated in figures 1-12, and as mentioned at col. 16, lines 10-20, for example, operable in a system comprising a money item conveyor, i.e., upward transport belt (124) as illustrated in figure and as mentioned at col. 16, lines 28-49, for example, wherein the money item detection apparatus (100) comprises:
a contact region, i.e., the area near preventing body (264S), as illustrated in figure 12 and as mentioned at col. 28, line 50-col. 29, line 9, arranged to physically interact with money items, i.e., coins (C), in a disruption configuration, i.e., interpreted as the lifting configuration of preventing body (264S) as illustrated in figure 12, on the money item conveyor (124), as illustrated in figure 2; and
a trigger region, i.e., full sensor (156), magnetic sensor (174), as mentioned at col. 18, line 64-col. 19, line 8, timing sensor (not shown), as mentioned at col. 20, lines 58-63, and guide body (264G) as illustrated in figure 11, for example, physically connected to the contact region, i.e., near (264S), and moveable between first and second positions, i.e., noting the positions of lifting device (264S) in figures 1-12, for example,
wherein physical interaction between the contact region (264S) and a money item, i.e., coin (C), in the disruption configuration on the money item conveyor (124) causes the trigger region (156, 174, 264G), to move from the first position to the second position to halt the money item conveyor (124), as illustrated in figures 1-12, for example.
Watson ‘385 is cited as teaching a coin handling device with a coin conveyor as illustrated in figures 1a-12, for example.
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
August 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights