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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishimura (JP-2022167156-A, NPL Machine Translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Ishimura discloses An automatic transaction apparatus comprising:
a money handling assembly (14) configured to handle money including banknotes and coins;
a first display (11) above the money handling assembly, the first display facing a first direction and the first display to display a first screen for input of a transaction instruction (Paragraph 18, lines 1-7);
a second display (12) above the money handling assembly, the second display facing a second direction which is opposite the first direction, and the second display to display a second screen for input of a transaction instruction (Paragraph 35, lines 1-5); and
an operation device (23) that faces the second direction, the operation device on which an operation for performing electronic settlement of a monetary amount corresponding to a transaction input to the second display is performed (Paragraph 23, lines 1-4 and Paragraph 35, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 2, Ishimura discloses The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a housing (10), wherein
the money handling assembly is provided within the housing (Paragraph 26, lines 3-4),
the housing includes a first surface facing the first direction (Direction out of apparatus 14, Figure 1a),
the first surface has a banknote inlet portion (Paragraph 26, lines 2-3) into which banknotes are inserted, a banknote outlet portion (Paragraph 26, lines 2-3) to which banknotes are discharged, a coin inlet portion (Paragraph 26, lines 2-3) into which coins are inserted, and a coin outlet portion (Paragraph 26, lines 2-3) to which coins are discharged, and
the first display is provided above the first surface (11 and 14, Figure 1a).
Regarding claim 3, Ishimura discloses The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the money handling assembly counts an amount of money inserted into at least one of the banknote inlet portion and the coin inlet portion, and discharges money to at least one of the banknote outlet portion and the coin outlet portion when there is a difference between the amount of the inserted money and a monetary amount corresponding to a transaction input to the first display (Paragraph 26, lines 6-15).
Regarding claim 8, Ishimura discloses The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the housing (10) includes a first housing including the first surface and in which the money handling assembly is provided, a second housing (10a) including a second surface (surface joined with display 11, figure 5) in which the first display is provided, and a third housing (20a) including a third surface (surface joined with display 21, Figure 5) in which the second display is provided, a size of the second housing in a direction orthogonal to the second surface and a size of the third housing in a direction orthogonal to the third surface are smaller than a size of the first housing in a direction orthogonal to the first surface (Figure 6a), and the third housing is positioned on the first housing and is aligned with the second housing (Figure 6a).
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimura (JP-2022167156-A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nishida (US-20190180550-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ishimura teaches The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 2,
Regarding claim 4, Ishimura does not expressly teach, however Nishida teaches further comprising:
a first control circuit (17a) configured to control the first display; and
a second control circuit (17) configured to control the money handling assembly, wherein
the first control circuit controls the first display to display the first screen (Paragraph 54, lines 1-2), and notifies the second control circuit of an instruction of cash handling corresponding to an instructed transaction (Paragraph 68, lines 1-6), in accordance with input to the first display (Paragraph 47, lines 1-5), and
the second control circuit controls the money handling assembly (Paragraph 53, lines 1-2) to count the amount of money inserted into at least one of the banknote inlet portion and the coin inlet portion (Paragraph 55, lines 1-6), and to perform a process of discharging money to at least one of the banknote outlet portion and the coin outlet portion (Paragraph 56, lines 1-11), when there is the difference between the amount of the inserted money and a monetary amount corresponding to a transaction input to the first display (Paragraph 56, lines 1-11). Regarding claim 4, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the automatic transaction apparatus taught by Ishimura with the multiple control circuits taught by Nishida. One of ordinary skill in the art would identify that splitting the control of the display and money handling operations already taught by Ishimura between two circuits would allow for more efficient processing of user inputs, as a dedicated display circuit would not need to handle operating the money handling operations.
Regarding claim 5, Ishimura in view of Nishida teaches The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 4,
Regarding claim 5, Nishida further teaches wherein when cash settlement is instructed by input to the first display,
the first control circuit notifies the second control circuit of the instruction of cash handling (Paragraph 68, lines 1-6), in accordance with the transaction input to the first display (Paragraph 47, lines 1-5), and
the second control circuit controls the money handling assembly to execute the notified cash handling (Paragraph 53, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Ishimura in view of Nishida teaches The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 4. Nishida further teaches further comprising a third control circuit (17) configured to control the second display and the operation device, wherein
the third control circuit controls the second display to display the second screen (Paragraph 54, lines 1-2), and when an instruction of a transaction is received via the second display, executes a process of performing electronic settlement of a monetary amount corresponding to the transaction, based on an operation on the operation device (Paragraph 68, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 6, while Nishida does not expressly teach a second control circuit dedicated to another display; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to add another control circuit for the second display of Ishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would identify that in order to operate the second display of Ishimura, another control circuit similar in structure to the one used in the first display would need to be used.
Regarding claim 7, Ishimura in view of Nishida teaches The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 4. Ishimura further teaches further comprising another operation device (13) that faces the first direction and on which an operation for performing electronic settlement of a monetary amount corresponding to a transaction input to the first display is performed (Paragraph 23, lines 1-4 and Paragraph 35, lines 1-5),
Regarding claim 7, Nishida further discloses wherein
when electronic settlement is instructed by input to the first display, the first control circuit executes a process of performing electronic settlement of a monetary amount corresponding to the inputted transaction, based on an operation on the another operation device (Paragraph 68, lines 1-11).
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimura (JP-2022167156-A).
Regarding claim 9, Ishimura teaches The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the size of the second housing in the direction orthogonal to the second surface and the size of the third housing in the direction orthogonal to the third surface are equal to or smaller than half the size of the first housing in the direction orthogonal to the first surface.
Regarding claim 9, while Ishimura does not expressly teach the relative sizes of each of the housings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention as a matter of design choice to adjust the relative sizes of each of the housings. It has been held that change in size, shape, or proportion do not form a patently distinct device, see MPEP § 2144.04 IV. A. One of ordinary skill in the art would identify that proportioning the size of the second and third housings to be smaller than the first housing in the direction orthogonal to the first surface would allow users on one side of the apparatus to more easily see if the other display was currently in use. This would allow users to more easily switch between the electronic and physical settlement sides in the case of one malfunctioning.
Regarding claim 10, Ishimura teaches The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the second housing is positioned on the first housing such that the second surface is flush with the first surface of the first housing.
Regarding claim 10, while Ishimura does not expressly teach the second surface being flush with the first surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention as a matter of design choice to adjust the shape of the first and second surface. It has been held that change in size, shape, or proportion do not form a patently distinct device, see MPEP § 2144.04 IV. A. One of ordinary skill in the art would identify that positioning the first surface to be flush with the second surface would reduce the risk of catching bags or other items on the apparatus while it is in operation.
Regarding claim 11, Ishimura teaches The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 8, wherein
the first housing further includes a fourth surface (Surface facing out of housing 10 and in same direction as display 21, Figure 2a) that faces a direction opposite to the first surface, and
the third housing is positioned on the first housing such that the third surface is flush with the fourth surface.
Regarding claim 11, while Ishimura does not expressly teach the fourth surface being flush with the third surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention as a matter of design choice to adjust the shape of the fourth and third surface. It has been held that change in size, shape, or proportion do not form a patently distinct device, see MPEP § 2144.04 IV. A. One of ordinary skill in the art would identify that positioning the fourth surface to be flush with the third surface would reduce the risk of catching bags or other items on the apparatus while it is in operation.
Regarding claim 12, Ishimura teaches The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the first display is provided in a second surface of the housing (10a),
another operation device (13), on which an operation for performing electronic settlement of a monetary amount corresponding to a transaction input to the first display is performed, is provided below the first display in the second surface,
in a right-left direction of the automatic transaction apparatus, the right-left direction being perpendicular to the first direction, the banknote inlet portion (Paragraph 26, lines 1-2) and the coin inlet portion (Paragraph 26, lines 1-2) are aligned,
the banknote inlet portion has a cavity shape and includes a banknote inlet that is open in the first surface,
the coin inlet portion has a cavity shape and includes a coin inlet that is open in the first surface,
in an up-down direction of the automatic transaction apparatus, the up-down direction being perpendicular to the right-left direction and perpendicular to the first direction, the coin inlet is larger than the banknote inlet and the coin inlet extends upward more than the banknote inlet,
the another operation device overlaps the banknote inlet portion in the up-down direction, and
the another operation device overlaps the coin inlet portion in the right-left direction.
Regarding claim 12, while Ishimura does not expressly teach the relative proportions of the banknote and coin inlet portions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention as a matter of design choice to adjust the sizes and shapes of the inlets relative to each other. It has been held that change in size, shape, or proportion do not form a patently distinct device, see MPEP § 2144.04 IV. A. One of ordinary skill in the art would identify that positioning the coin and banknote inlets to overlap in the right-left direction would ensure a user did not have to bend down to reach the banknote and coin inlets during one operation. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would identify that the banknote and coin inlets having a cavity shape would reduce the amount of coins and banknotes that were erroneously dropped while trying to deposit them into the machine, as the cavity shape would catch loose checks. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would identify that overlapping the another operation device with the banknote inlet in the up-down direction and the coin inlet in the right-left direction would ensure a user did not need to move excessively while completing an operation of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, Ishimura teaches The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
in a right-left direction of the automatic transaction apparatus, the right-left direction being perpendicular to the first direction:
the banknote inlet portion (Paragraph 26, lines 1-2) and the coin inlet portion (Paragraph 26, lines 1-2) overlap, and
the banknote outlet portion and the coin outlet portion overlap, and
in an up-down direction of the automatic transaction apparatus, the up-down direction being perpendicular to the right-left direction and perpendicular to the first direction:
the banknote inlet portion and the banknote outlet portion overlap, and
the coin inlet portion and the coin outlet portion overlap.
Regarding claim 13, while Ishimura does not expressly teach the relative proportions of the banknote and coin inlet portions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention as a matter of design choice to adjust the sizes and shapes of the inlets relative to each other. It has been held that change in size, shape, or proportion do not form a patently distinct device, see MPEP § 2144.04 IV. A. One of ordinary skill in the art would identify that positioning the coin and banknote outlets to overlap in the right-left direction would ensure a user did not have to bend down to reach the banknote and coin inlets during one operation. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would identify that overlapping the coin inlets and outlets in the up-down direction, as well as the banknote inlets and outlets in the up-down direction would ensure a user would not need to move excessively between depositing and dispensing operations of banknotes and coins.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimura (JP-2022167156-A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bengtsson (US-8926412-B2).
Regarding claim 14, Ishimura teaches The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the banknote inlet portion has a cavity shape and includes a banknote inlet (Paragraph 26, lines 1-2) that is open in the first surface,
the coin inlet portion has a cavity shape, includes a coin inlet that is open in the first surface,
in an up-down direction of the automatic transaction apparatus, the up-down direction being perpendicular to the first direction, the coin inlet is larger than the banknote inlet.
Regarding claim 14, Ishimura does not expressly teach, however Bengtsson teaches and includes a coin reception portion (153, Figure 12b) that receives a plurality of coins, at a bottom portion thereof,
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the automatic transaction apparatus taught by Ishimura with the coin reception portion taught by Bengtsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would identify that structuring the coin inlet to slope downward into the machine would ensure users did not erroneously place coins into the inlet that were not actually received by the apparatus. A downward slope would cause the coins to naturally slide into the inlet without need for the user to individually feed the coins one at a time.
Regarding claim 14, while Ishimura does not expressly teach the relative proportions of the banknote and coin inlet portions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention as a matter of design choice to adjust the sizes and shapes of the inlets relative to each other. It has been held that change in size, shape, or proportion do not form a patently distinct device, see MPEP § 2144.04 IV. A. One of ordinary skill in the art would identify that having coin inlet be larger than the banknote inlet in the up-down direction would allow a user to more easily distinguish between the coin and banknote inlets.
Regarding claim 15, Ishimura teaches The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the coin inlet portion has a cavity shape, includes a coin inlet (Paragraph 26, lines 1-2) that is open in the first surface,
Regarding claim 15, Ishimura does not expressly teach, however Bengtsson teaches and includes a coin reception portion (153, Figure 12b) that receives a plurality of coins, at a bottom portion thereof,
in an interior of the coin reception portion, a taking-in port (176, Figure 12b) for taking coins into the money handling assembly is provided at an end portion opposite to the coin inlet side, and a passage (3, Annotated Figure 1) that has a sloping bottom surface sloping downward toward the taking-in port side and in which coins flow toward the taking-in port is provided, and
the passage includes a first passage (1, Annotated Figure 1) that has an entrance width wider than a width of the taking-in port and has a width gradually narrowing toward the taking-in port side, and a second passage (2, Annotated Figure 1) that extends from an exit of the first passage to the taking-in port.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the automatic transaction apparatus taught by Ishimura with the coin reception portion taught by Bengtsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would identify that having a sloped and tapered coin hopper for feeding coins into the apparatus would passively guide the coins from the inlet into the machine. This would ensure users could spend less time operating the apparatus, as they would not need to feed individual coins into the apparatus.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimura (JP-2022167156-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blake (US-9934640-B2).
Ishimura teaches The automatic transaction apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the money handling assembly (14) includes a banknote handling assembly (Paragraph 26, lines 1-2) configured to handle banknotes and a coin handling assembly (Paragraph 26, lines 1-2) configured to handle coins, and
Ishimura does not expressly teach, however Blake teaches a power supply assembly (230) configured to supply power to both the banknote handling assembly and the coin handling assembly is provided within the housing (Col. 7, lines 35-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the automatic transaction apparatus taught by Ishimura with the housed power supply taught by Blake. One of ordinary skill in the art would identify that the coin and banknote handling apparatuses would need to be powered, and by housing that power supply in the apparatus there would be a reduced risk of damage to the power supply, potentially interrupting service of the apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R UEBERSCHAER whose telephone number is (571)270-5553. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-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.
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.R.U./ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
