Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/961,737

MONEY HANDLING APPARATUS AND MONEY HANDLING METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 27, 2024
Examiner
TAYLOR, APRIL ALICIA
Art Unit
2876
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Glory Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
541 granted / 687 resolved
+10.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
708
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§103
36.2%
-3.8% vs TC avg
§102
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§112
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 687 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/2026 has been entered. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-10, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi et al. (US 8,256,624) (hereinafter referred to as Doi) in view of Michels et al. (US 2015/0021385 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Michels), cited by the applicants. Re claim 1, Doi discloses a banknote handling apparatus, comprising: an inlet (11) through which a banknote is fed from outside of the banknote handling apparatus into inside of the banknote handling apparatus (figs. 1 and 4); a transport (16) to transport the banknote (figs. 4 and 6A); an outlet (13) through which banknotes are fed out from inside of the banknote handling apparatus to outside of the banknote handling apparatus (figs. 4 and 6A); a plurality of storages (21A-21F), each storage of the plurality of storages storing banknotes (figs. 4 and 6A); an upper assembly (10) including the inlet (11) and the outlet (13) (figs. 4 and 6A); and a lower assembly (20, 30) below the upper assembly (10), the lower assembly including the plurality of storages (21A-21F) and a collection cassette (31) which stores the banknotes fed from the plurality of storages (21A-21F) (fig. 6A; col. 10, lines 40-54), wherein: a storage (21A-21D) of the plurality of storages (21A-21F) has two drums (fig. 6A), the banknote is fed out to the transport in a first direction (vertical direction) (fig. 6A), the storage (21A-212D) comprises an inlet-outlet part facing the transport (16) and opened toward the transport (16) with respect to the first direction (vertical direction) (see fig. 6A), the transport (16) is located on an opposite side of the storage (21A-21D) from the collection cassette (31) with respect to the first direction (vertical direction), with the storage (21A-21D) interposed between the transport (16) and the collection cassette (31) (fig. 6A), the transport (16) transports the banknote to the storage (21A-21D) through the inlet-outlet part along the first direction (vertical direction) (fig. 4); the collection cassette (31) has an inlet part facing toward the transport (16) (see figs. 4, 6A, 6B), and the transport (16) transports the banknote to the collection cassette (31) through the inlet part along the first direction (vertical direction) (see figs. 4, 6A, 6B). Doi fails to specifically teach wherein: the banknote is wound on each drum with a pair of tapes sandwiching the banknote therebetween as each drum rotates, the banknote sandwiched between the pair of tapes is fed out to the transport as each drum rotates in a direction opposite to the winding direction of the tapes, and centers of the two drums are arranged along a second direction which is angled with respect to the first direction. Michels discloses a banknote handling apparatus comprising a plurality of storages (100, 200, 300, 400), wherein: a storage (100, 200, 300) of the plurality of storages has two drums (102, 104) (fig. 1, para. [0052]), the banknote is wound on each drum with a pair of tapes sandwiching the banknote therebetween as each drum rotates (paras. [0061]-[0065]), the banknote sandwiched between the pair of tapes is fed out to the transport as each drum rotates in a direction opposite to the winding direction of the tapes (para. [0063]), and centers of the two drums (102, 104) are arranged along a second direction which is angled with respect to the first direction (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute Doi’s storage system with Michels’ two roll storage system in order to store two different unmixed denominations using a common cash box (see Michels, para. [0010]-[0011]). Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to employ a two roll storage system within Doi’s storage unit in order to increase the number of denominations stored using a smaller number of cash boxes. Re claim 3, Doi as modified by Michels further discloses the banknote handling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the banknote is fed out to the transport in a horizontal (see Doi, fig. 6A, storage (21E and 21F); and Michels, fig. 1). Re claim 5, Doi as modified by Michels further discloses wherein the banknote is fed out to the transport in a front-rear direction of the banknote handling apparatus (Doi shows, in fig. 4, the banknote being fed to storage 21E and 21F; and Michels shows, in fig. 1 the banknote being fed to storage (100, 200, 300)). Re claims 7 and 9, Doi as modified by Michels further discloses wherein the inlet-outlet part is opened at a front side of the banknote handling apparatus (see Michels, fig. 1), but fails to teach wherein the inlet-outlet part is opened at a rear side of the banknote handling apparatus. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to locate the opening of the inlet-outlet part at a rear side of the banknote handling apparatus, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Re claims 10 and 12, Doi as modified by Michels further discloses the banknote handling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the centers of the two drums are aligned in a front-rear direction of the banknote handling apparatus, and are arranged at different positions in a vertical direction (see Michels, fig. 1). Re claim 13, Doi as modified by Michels further discloses wherein the two drums include a first drum (102) and a second drum (104), the first drum (102) is arranged at a rear side of the banknote handling apparatus, the second drum (104) is arranged at a front side of the banknote handling apparatus, and the center of the first drum is located higher than the center of the second drum (see Michels, fig. 6). Re claim 14, Doi as modified by Michels further discloses wherein the two drums include a first drum (104) and a second drum (102), the first drum (104) is arranged at a rear side of the banknote handling apparatus, the second drum (102) is arranged at a front side of the banknote handling apparatus, an inlet-outlet part (28) toward the second drum (102) is located higher than an inlet-outlet part (30) toward the first drum (104) (see Michels, fig. 1) Doi as modified by Michels fails to teach wherein an inlet-outlet part toward the second drum is located lower than an inlet-outlet part toward the first drum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to locate an inlet-outlet part toward the second drum lower than an inlet-outlet part toward the first drum, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Re claim 15, Doi as modified by Michels discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an inlet-outlet part toward the second drum is located lower than an inlet-outlet part toward the first drum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to locate an inlet-outlet part toward the second drum lower than an inlet-outlet part toward the first drum, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Re claim 16, Doi as modified by Michels further discloses wherein the two drums include a first drum and a second drum, the second drum is arranged at a front side of the banknote handling apparatus (see Michels, fig. 1, first drum 104, second drum 102) or the second drum is located so that the center of the second drum is lower than the center of the first drum (see fig. 6, first drum 102, second drum 104). Doi as modified by Michels fails to teach wherein the second drum has a higher storage capacity than the first drum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a storage having drums with different storage capacities as it would have been a matter of design of choice of the manufacturer. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to use drums with different storage capacities in order to store more commonly used denominations and less commonly used denominations within a single storage unit. Re claim 17, Doi as modified by Michels further discloses wherein the second drum (104) is located so that the center of the second drum (104) is lower than the center of the first drum (102) (see Michels, fig. 6). Doi as modified by Michels fails to teach wherein the second drum has a higher storage capacity than the first drum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a storage having drums with different storage capacities as it would have been a matter of design of choice of the manufacturer. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to use drums with different storage capacities in order to store more commonly used denominations and less commonly used denominations within a single storage unit. Re claim 18, Doi as modified by Michels further discloses wherein the second drum (104) is located so that the center of the second drum (104) is lower than the center of the first drum (102) (see Michels, fig. 6). Doi as modified by Michels fails to teach wherein the second drum has a higher storage capacity than the first drum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a storage having drums with different storage capacities as it would have been a matter of design of choice of the manufacturer. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to use drums with different storage capacities in order to store more commonly used denominations and less commonly used denominations within a single storage unit. Re claim 19, Doi as modified by Michels further discloses the banknote handling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each drum has a rotation axis, and the rotation axes of the two drums are arranged along the second direction (Michels, para. [0063]). Re claim 20, Doi as modified by Michels further discloses the banknote handling apparatus according to claim 10, wherein each drum has a rotation axis, and the rotation axes of the two drums are arranged along the second direction (Michels, para. [0063]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to APRIL A TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 9am-6pm. 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 S 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. /APRIL A TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2876 /THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 27, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 26, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 04, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602558
AUTHENTICATION AND SECURE COMMUNICATION USING LED ARRAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592113
Dual Cassette
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585911
Optical Anti-Counterfeiting Element and Optical Anti-Counterfeiting Product
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579393
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND SERVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12562019
CASSETTE HOLDER FOR AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+8.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 687 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month