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
This action is in response to the application filed on 5/7/2026.
Restriction
Examiner acknowledges the applicant election of Species A Claims 1-8 in response to the election/restriction requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
All claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 1 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent. The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of:
A money handling system, comprising: a money handling device operated by a customer, the money handling device including first control circuitry; and a reception device which accepts input of information about a monetary transaction of the customer, the reception device including second control circuitry, wherein the second control circuitry is configured to output transaction information in response to accepting the input, the first control circuitry is configured to execute, in response to obtaining the transaction information output by the reception device, a transaction preparation process to prepare money for the monetary transaction, and the first control circuitry is configured to execute, in response to accepting an operation by the customer, a transaction process based on the transaction information by using the money prepared in the transaction preparation process.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “execute a transaction preparation process to prepare money for the monetary transaction” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “reception device, the first control circuitry” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 listed below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumida (U.S. Patent ref#1) in view of Hor=Horita (U.S. Patent Pub 20230316845)
Re claim 1: Izumida discloses:
A money handling system, comprising: (see Izumida Fig 1-3)
a money handling device operated by a customer, the money handling device including first control circuitry; and (see Izumida Fig 1-3)
a reception device which accepts input of information about a monetary transaction of the customer, the reception device including second control circuitry, wherein (see Izumida Fig 9 item 1005 + Fig 7 item 101 + Fig 1-3)
the second control circuitry is configured to output transaction information in response to accepting the input, (see Izumida Fig 9 item 1005 + Fig 7 item 102 + Fig 3 item 12)
the first control circuitry is configured to execute, in response to obtaining the transaction information output by the reception device, a transaction preparation process to prepare money for the monetary transaction, and (see Izumida para 0076 + Fig 9 item 1005 + Fig 7 item 101 + Fig 3 item 12)
the first control circuitry is configured to execute, in response to accepting an operation by the customer, a transaction process based on the transaction information by using the money prepared in the transaction preparation process. (see Izumida para 0076, 0014-0019 + Fig 9 item 1005 + Fig 7 item 101 + Fig 3 item 11-13)
Although Izumida does not explicitly have control circuitry , Hor more clearly claims “output transaction information ” Hor Fig0083 + Fig 2-5
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effect filling date was made to modify Izumida by adapting any features of Hor.
It is clear that one would be motivated by the teaching in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, both Izumida teaches a money handling device that is adapted in Hor.
Re claim 2: see claim 1 +
wherein the reception device is a terminal device operated by a teller. (see Izumida para 0076 + Fig 9 item 1005 + Fig 7 item 10, 20, 200 + Fig 3 item 10, 20, 200)
Re claim 3: see claim 1 +
wherein the reception device is a terminal device operated by the customer. (see Izumida para 0076 + Fig 9 item 1005 + Fig 7 item 10, 20, 200 + Fig 3 item 10, 20, 200)
Re claim 4: see claim 1 +
wherein the money handling device includes: a storage compartment for storing money, a withdrawal port to output money to customers, and a holding compartment for temporary storage of money, and the first control circuitry is configured to execute a withdrawal preparation process that transfers the money from the storage compartment to the holding compartment as the transaction preparation process. (see Izumida Fig 9 item 1005, 1002, 1001, 1003, 1006 + Fig 7 item 10-40 + Fig 3 item 10-40)
Re claim 5: see claim 1 +
wherein the second control circuitry is configured to output first person information, identifying the customer together with the transaction information, to the money handling device, the money handling device includes first circuitry configured to obtain second person information that identifies a person operating the money handling device, and match the first person information with the second person information, the transaction process includes a first withdrawal process that transfers the money from the holding compartment to the withdrawal port, and the first control circuitry is configured to execute the first withdrawal process when the first circuitry determines that the first person information and the second person information match, and not execute the first withdrawal process when the first circuitry determines that the first person information and the second person information do not match. (see Izumida Fig 7 item 102, 10-40 + Fig 9 item 1005, 1002, 1001, 1003, 1006 + Fig 3 item 10-40))
Re claim 6: see claim 1 +
wherein the money handling device includes a deposit port through which the customer inserts money, and the first control circuitry is configured to execute a deposit preparation process, to transfer the money stored in the holding compartment to the storage compartment, in response to money being fed into the deposit port after the withdrawal preparation process is executed and before the first withdrawal process is executed. (see Izumida para 0023, Fig 9 item 1005, 1002, 1001, 1003, 1006 + Fig 7 item 10-40 + Fig 3 item 10-40)
Re claim 7: see claim 1 +
wherein the first control circuitry is configured to execute a second withdrawal process, in which money is transferred from the storage compartment to the withdrawal port without passing through the holding compartment, in response to the first circuitry determining that the first person information and the second person information do not match and the money handling device has accepted a withdrawal operation different from the money transaction. (see Izumida para 0023, Fig 9 item 1005, 1002, 1001, 1003, 1006 + Fig 7 item 10-40 + Fig 3 item 10-40)
Re claim 8: see claim 1 +
further comprising: a plurality of the money handling devices including the money handling device, and a reporting device that identifies and reports the money handling device that obtained the transaction information. (see Izumida Fig 9 item 1005, 1002, 1001, 1003, 1006 + Fig 7 item 10-40 + Fig 3 item 10-40)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Niioka et al., U.S. Patent Pub 2002/0113160, discloses a paper money handling device of the type in which paper money conveying unit, wheel driving unit and reel driving unit are driven to wind a tape between a wheel and a reel and to rewind the tape wound on the wheel to the reel and to deliver paper money
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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 Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights