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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 6th, 2026 has been entered.
By the amendment claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1 and 11 being amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6, 8, 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 4 and 17 “wherein the rule is based on” should be “wherein the rule is further based on;” in claim 6 “wherein the rule is specified” should be “wherein the rule is further specified;” in claim 8 and 20 “wherein the classification includes” should be “wherein the classification further includes.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1,3,5-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (US 10186103), hereafter Nishida, further in view of Paraskevakos (US 20090148027).
With regards to claim 1, Nishida discloses a method comprising: receiving, at a note handling device (10), a note (via feeding mechanism 20a)); capturing, at the note handling device, identifying information about the note (Col. 5, L27-32); determining, using the identifying information, an identifier corresponding to the note (Col. 8, L12-19); the identifier including a type, a value, and a version of the note (Col. 8, L12-16; Col. 10, L50-54); classifying the note according to a rule associated with the identifier (Col. 8, L51-57), the rule indicating a classification for the note based on the issuer matching one of a plurality of issuers (Col. 10, L50-54); automatically sorting the note, at the note handling device, into a particular bin among a plurality of bins of the note handling device based on the classification, the particular bin corresponding to the issuer (Col. 10, L55-65). Nishida does not disclose the issuer being one of a plurality of different issuing banks printing a same currency.
However, Paraskevakos discloses the issuer being one of a plurality of different issuing banks (P007) printing a same currency (use case outlined in P0019; multiple issuers of the euro). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the issuer be an issuer of the same currency as disclosed by Paraskevakos in order to keep track of how much each issuer is printing.
With regards to claim 3, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Nishida further discloses wherein the note is a bank note (Abstract)
With regards to claim 5, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Nishida further discloses wherein the type is a currency type, the value is a monetary value of the note, and the issuer is a central bank (Col. 5, L25-32).
With regards to claim 6, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Nishida further discloses wherein the rule is specified by a bank or entity operating the note handling device (Col. 8, L51-58).
With regards to claim 7, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Nishida further discloses wherein the classification includes a set of notes, including the note, having a same type, a same value, or a same issuer, and wherein the rule classifies identifiers based on one of the same type, the same value, or the same issuer (Col. 10, L19-23)
With regards to claim 8, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Nishida further discloses wherein the classification includes a set of notes, including the note, indicated to be taken out of circulation (Col. 10, L66-Col. 11, 3).
With regards to claim 10, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Nishida further discloses before determining the identifier corresponding to the note, comparing the identifying information of the note to a template of the note handling device to validate the note (Col. 10, L34-36).
With regards to claim 11, Nishida discloses a note handling device (10) comprising: a plurality of bins including a bin (Col. 10, L55-65); a slot configured to receive a note (inlet 20); at least one conveyor configured to move notes from the slot to the bin of the plurality of bins (transporting unit 24); a camera (recognition unit 26) configured to capture identifying information about the note; processing circuitry (controlling unit 50) ; and memory (54), including instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations to: determine, using the identifying information, an identifier corresponding to the note (Col. 8, L12-19), the identifier including a type, a value, and a version of the note (Col. 8, L12-16; Col. 10, L50-54); classify the note according to a rule associated with the identifier, the rule indicating a classification for the note (Col. 8, L51-57); the rule indicating a classification for the note based on the issuer matching one of a plurality of issuers (Col. 10, L50-54); and automatically output control instructions to cause the at least one conveyor to convey the note into the bin corresponding to the issuer based on the classification (Col. 10, L55-65). Nishida does not disclose the issuer being one of a plurality of different issuing banks printing a same currency.
However, Paraskevakos discloses the issuer being one of a plurality of different issuing banks (P007) printing a same currency (use case outlined in P0019; multiple issuers of the euro). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the issuer be an issuer of the same currency as disclosed by Paraskevakos in order to keep track of how much each issuer is printing.
With regards to claim 13, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. Nishida further discloses wherein the at least one conveyor is configured to move notes from the slot to any bin of the plurality of bins (Col. 8, L29-35).
With regards to claim 14, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. Nishida further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processing circuitry to validate the note based on the identifying information by comparing the identifying information to a template stored in the memory (Col. 10, L34-36).
With regards to claim 16, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. Nishida further discloses wherein the note is a bank note (Abstract).
With regards to claim 18 Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. Nishida further discloses wherein the type is a currency type, the value is a monetary value of the note, and the issuer is a central bank (Col. 5, L25-32).
With regards to claim 19, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. Nishida further discloses wherein the classification includes a set of notes, including the note, having a same type, a same value, or a same issuer, and wherein the rule classifies identifiers based on one of the same type, the same value, or the same issuer (Col. 10, L19-23).
With regards to claim 20, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. Nishida further discloses wherein the classification includes a set of notes, including the note, indicated to be taken out of circulation (Col 8, L60-Col. 9, L3).
Claim(s) 2,12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida and Paraskevakos as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Steinlin et al (US 20210264711), hereafter Steinlin.
With regards to claims 2 and 15, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claims 1 and 11, respectively as outlined above. Nishida and Paraskevakos does not disclose wherein the note handling device is an automated teller machine.
However, Steinlin discloses a note handling machine that classifies currency (Abstract) that is an automated teller machine (P0018). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the device disclosed by Nishida could be an automated teller machine in order to make sure the automated teller machine dispenses the right denomination of currency.
With regards to claim 12, Nishida and Paraskevakos all the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. Nishida and Paraskevakos does not disclose wherein the bin is a recycler configured to receive and output notes. However, Steinlin discloses a note handling machine that classifies currency (Abstract) that is a teller recycler (P0018). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the bin disclosed by Nishida could be a recycler configured to receive and output notes in order to make sure a teller is supplied with the correct distribution of bills.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida and Paraskevakos as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akita et al. (US 20200388098) hereafter Akita.
With regards to claim 9, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Nishida does not disclose wherein classifying the note includes classifying the note into two or more classifications the two or more classifications ranked according to bin priority wherein automatically sorting the note includes automatically sorting the note based on the two or more classifications and a current bin status of a highest ranked bin in the bin priority.
However, Akita discloses wherein classifying the note includes classifying the note into two or more classifications (P085) the two or more classifications ranked according to bin priority (P037) wherein automatically sorting the note includes automatically sorting the note based on the two or more classifications (P085) and a current bin status of a highest ranked bin in the bin priority (P037). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use two or more classifications in order to sort the banknotes as disclosed by Nishida in the manner disclosed by Akita in order to have a more accurate sort. It would have also been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to sort notes into bins based on a bin status (full vs not full) in the manner disclosed by Akita in the method disclosed by Nishida in order to keep the notes from getting jammed.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida and Paraskevakos as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Kozuki et al. (US 20230326281), hereafter Kozuki.
With regards to claim 17, Nishida and Paraskevakos disclose all the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. Nishida and Paraskevakos does not disclose wherein the rule is based on an age of the note associated with the identifier.
However, Kozuki discloses wherein the rule is based on an age of the note associated with the identifier (P043). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to base the rule as disclosed by Nishida on age as disclosed by Kozuki in order to better control the amount of currency being circulated as new money is being made.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments are rendered moot. New grounds of rejection are presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LYNN BURKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5824. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am to 6:00pm EST.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/J.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights