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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of IDS filed on 04/04/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2023/034668 filed on 10/06/2023 which has PRO 63/414,249 filed on 10/07/2022.
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, 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eastman et al. (US 2007/0034683).
Re Claim 1: Eastman et al. teaches ATM that can center different sized cash stack in a cash outlet opening, which includes a shuttle frame guide {herein gate 604} configured to be positioned in the ATM (¶ 218+); a shuttle frame telescopically {herein a telescoping} engaged with said shuttle frame guide, said shuttle frame is moveable between first and second end limits of travel {herein the contacting stripper roll is similarly in operative connection with a one-way clutch so as to resist movement of the sheet being removed} (see ¶ 23+, 128-129+), said shuttle frame is moveable relative to said shuttle frame guide between a retracted position and an extended position (¶ 119-121+, 177-184+, 196+); and a shuttle assembly telescopically engaged with said shuttle frame, said shuttle assembly is moveable between first and second end {herein an open end 413/564 and closed end 414} limits of travel, said shuttle assembly is moveable relative to said shuttle frame between a retracted position and an extended position (¶ 183-188+, 208-217+).
Re Claim 16: Eastman et al. teaches device and method, further comprising: a locking assembly 302 that is in a locked configuration when said shuttle assembly is in said extended position of said shuttle assembly and is in an unlocked configuration when said shuttle assembly is spaced from said extended position of said shuttle assembly (¶ 120+, 139-141+).
Re Claim 20: Eastman et al. teaches device and method, wherein: said shuttle assembly further comprises at least one tab; said shuttle frame {herein shutter 604} further comprises at least one slot, wherein said at least one tab is received in said at least one slot, wherein said shuttle frame guides movement of said shuttle assembly relative to said shuttle frame through cooperative interaction between said at least one tab and said at least one slot (¶ 204-226+).
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) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman et al. (US 2007/0034683) in view of Kim (US 2013/0061699).
The teachings of Eastman et al. have been discussed above. Eastman et al. further teaches the stack holder 404 can have a drive motor and drive wheels (or belts or pulleys) associated therewith or connected thereto (see 179+) and multiple means of transport (see 105-115+).
Examiner’s notes: It is known in the art that the transport mechanism may be in the form of a gear train (see Ross et al. 2005/0010525, ¶ 92+) and a gear train consists of a plurality of gears.
Eastman et al. fails to specifically teach a gear train including at least a first gear mounted on said shuttle frame; at least one first belt engaged with said first gear mounted on said shuttle frame; and at least one second belt engaged with at least a second gear of said gear train.
Kim teaches object processing apparatus and financial apparatus, a gear train including at least a first gear 22 mounted on said shuttle frame; at least one first belt engaged with said first gear mounted on said shuttle frame; and at least one second belt engaged with at least a second gear 27 of said gear train (¶ 27+).
In view of Kim’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ into the teachings of Eastman et al. a gear train including at least a first gear mounted on said shuttle frame; at least one first belt engaged with said first gear mounted on said shuttle frame; and at least one second belt engaged with at least a second gear of said gear train as drive transmission means for transmitting the rotational driving force of the shaft. Such modification would be beneficial by providing transport arrangements including stretchable endless belts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record teaches at least one motor (see ¶ 177-179+) but fails to specifically teach:
Re Claim 2: a transmission assembly having at least one motor with an output shaft, wherein said transmission assembly converts rotation of said output shaft of said motor into rectilinear motion of both of said shuttle frame as well as said shuttle assembly;
Re Claim 19: a motor fixed relative to said shuttle frame guide and having an output shaft; a first pulley mounted on said output shaft; a first belt extending around said first pulley and thereby driven in motion by rotation of said output shaft by said motor; a second pulley fixed relative to said shuttle frame, said first belt extending around said second pulley and said second pulley thereby driven in rotation by rotation of said output shaft; a third pulley fixed relative to said shuttle frame and spaced from said second pulley; a second belt extending around said third pulley and thereby driven in motion by rotation of said third pulley; and a tab mounted on said second belt and thereby moving with said second belt when said second belt moves. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claimed invention were not shown by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamashita et al. (US 2003/0193273) teaches banknote handling device.
Okamoto et al. (US 2018/0374317) teaches medium processing device and medium transaction device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWYN LABAZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Mr. STEVE 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.
/EDWYN LABAZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876