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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/3/2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed October 23, 2025. Claims 1-5, 9-16 and 18-20 were amended and claims 6-8 and 17 were left as previously presented. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 8, 2026 concerning the previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 USC 112 (b) rejection of claims 1-20 has been fully considered and persuasive. The 35 USC 112 (b) rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 8-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskaran et al. referred herein as Bhas (U.S. Patent No. 11,590,997) in view of Sohn et al. referred herein as Sohn (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0218254).
As to claims 1 and 9, Bhas teaches a customer service robot and a method comprising:
a memory that stores at least one program; and a processor that executes the at least one program stored in the memory to function as a moving form setting component configured to set a moving form in moving while being accompanied by the customer to a first moving form for leading the customer and moving along a set moving route or a second moving form for moving following the customer; (col 2, lines 23-32 and col 16 lines 43-50, the smart cart follows or leads the user to a specific location in the store)
a movement controller configured to cause the customer service robot to move, in the moving form set by the moving form setting component, in a state in which a distance to the customer is kept constant. (col 14-15 lines 65-7, the smart cart maintains a defined distance with the user)
Bhas does not explicitly teach:
based on an instruction to change the moving form, shifting from the first moving form to the second moving form or from the second moving form to the first moving form;
However, Sohn teaches:
based on an instruction to change the moving form, shifting from the first moving form to the second moving form or from the second moving form to the first moving form; (para 12-13 and 233-234, the robot is able to switch between the modes of travel depending on the users preference)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to switch the guidance mode of a robot in Bhas as taught by Sohn. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Sohn that doing so would allow easy achievement of effective administration and processing speed/time.
As to claims 2 and 10, Bhas in view of Sohn teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above.
Bhas further teaches:
an imaging controller configured to cause a first imaging component, which images a front side of a moving direction, and a second imaging component, which images a rear side of the moving direction, to perform imaging; (col 14 lines 26-40 and col 16 lines 51-59, show that the smart cart has sensors that detect which direction should the cart perform)
an image processing component configured to, based on the moving form setting component setting the first moving form, recognize a position of the customer registered in advance out of an image captured by the second imaging component and, based on the moving form setting component setting the second moving form, recognize the position of the customer registered in advance out of an image captured by the first imaging component, wherein the movement controller causes the customer service robot to move in a state in which a distance between the customer recognized by the image processing component and the customer service robot is kept constant.( col 14-15 lines 65-7)
As to claims 4 and 12, Bhas in view of Sohn teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above.
Bhas further teaches:
wherein the moving form setting component sets the moving form of the customer service robot to the second moving form based on a determination that the customer entered the store and sets the moving form of the customer service robot to the first moving form based on a determination that the customer left the store. (col 15-16 lines 63-8 and col 16 lines 33-42, show that the system determines the state of the smart cart based on the user entering or exiting the store)
Bhas does not explicitly teach switching from one mode to the other.
However, Sohn explicitly states that the robot is able to switch between travel modes based on user commands. (para 260-264 and fig. 9)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to switch the guidance mode of a robot in Bhas as taught by Sohn. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Sohn that doing so would allow easy achievement of effective administration and processing speed/time
As to claim 6, Bhas in view of Sohn teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bhas further teaches:
a placing table that projects from the customer service robot so that a commodity can be placed thereon. (col 5 lines 46-58, the smart cart comprises a basket (i.e. placing table) for placing the items)
As to claims 8 and 15, Bhas in view of Sohn teach all the limitations of claims 2 and 10 as discussed above.
Bhas further teaches:
wherein the first imaging component is further configured to recognize a barcode associated with a commodity. (col 14 lines 48-64)
As to claim 16, Bhas teaches a customer service support system comprising:
a plurality of customer service robots, each customer service robot autonomously moves to support shopping of a customer in a commercial facility including a plurality of stores, each customer service robot comprising: (fig. 2)
a moving form setting component configured to set a moving form in moving while being accompanied by the customer to a first moving form for leading the customer and moving along a set moving route or a second moving form for moving following the customer;( col 2, lines 23-32 and col 16 lines 43-50)
a movement controller configured to cause the customer service robot to move, in the moving form set by the moving form setting component, in a state in which a distance to the customer is kept constant; (col 14-15 lines 65-7, the smart cart maintains a defined distance with the user)
a store device; a customer terminal, wherein the customer service robot, the store device, and the customer terminal are connected to a network. (col 14 lines 48-64)
Bhas does not explicitly teach:
based on an instruction to change the moving form, shifting from the first moving form to the second moving form or from the second moving form to the first moving form;
However, Sohn teaches:
based on an instruction to change the moving form, shifting from the first moving form to the second moving form or from the second moving form to the first moving form; (para 12-13 and 233-234, the robot is able to switch between the modes of travel depending on the users preference)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to switch the guidance mode of a robot in Bhas as taught by Sohn. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Sohn that doing so would allow easy achievement of effective administration and processing speed/time.
As to claim 17, Bhas in view of Sohn teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Bhas further teaches:
wherein the store device is a POS terminal or a store server provided in each of the stores present in the commercial facility. (col 2 lines 29-49)
As to claim 18, Bhas in view of Sohn teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Bhas further teaches:
a parking lot system configured to manage entering and leaving states and parking positions of vehicles.(col 5 lines 1-6 and col 14 lines 26-40)
As to claim 19, Bhas in view of Sohn teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Bhas further teaches:
wherein the customer terminal is a smartphone or a tablet terminal carried by a customer. (col 14 lines 48-64)
As to claim 20, Bhas in view of Sohn teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Bhas further teaches:
wherein each customer service robot further comprises: an imaging controller configured to cause a first imaging component, which images a front side of a moving direction, and a second imaging component, which images a rear side of the moving direction, to perform imaging; (col 14 lines 26-40 and col 16 lines 51-59, show that the smart cart has sensors that detect which direction should the cart perform)
an image processing component configured to, if the moving form setting component sets the first moving form, recognize a position of the customer registered in advance out of an image captured by the second imaging component and, if the moving form setting component sets the second moving form, recognize the position of the customer registered in advance out of an image captured by the first imaging component, wherein the movement controller causes the customer service robot to move in a state in which a distance between the customer recognized by the image processing component and the customer service robot is kept constant. ( col 14-15 lines 65-7)
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskaran et al. referred herein as Bhas (U.S. Patent No. 11,590,997) in view of Sohn et al. referred herein as Sohn (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0218254), further in view of Mascorro Medina et al. referred herein as Mascorro (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0114488).
As to claim 3, Bhas in view of Sohn teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bhas further teaches:
a display controller configured to cause the first display component included on a front side of the customer service robot to display information corresponding to the moving form (col 16 lines 33-42, the display on the front of the smart cart displays the moving state of the smart cart)
Bhas and Sohn do not teach:
the second display component included on a rear side of the customer service robot
However, Mascorro teaches:
the second display component included on a rear side of the customer service robot (para 25 and 28, show that the robot has two displays one on the front and one on the back)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to add a display on the back of the robot in Bhas in view of Sohn as taught by Mascorro. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Mascorro that doing so would allow the robot to be interactive with customers from multiple directions.
As to claim 7, Bhas in view of Sohn teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bhas and Sohn do not teach:
a light emitting component configured to emit a plurality of colors and switch a light emission color to thereby inform various states of the customer service robot or a commodity purchase state.
However, Mascorro teaches:
a light emitting component configured to emit a plurality of colors and switch a light emission color to thereby inform various states of the customer service robot or a commodity purchase state. (para 49)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to add motion colors in Bhas in view of Sohn as taught Mascorro. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Mascorro that doing so would allow the robot to be interactive with customers from multiple directions.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskaran et al. referred herein as Bhas (U.S. Patent No. 11,590,997) in view of Sohn et al. referred herein as Sohn (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0218254), further in view of Jeong (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0420257)
As to claims 5 and 13, Bhas in view of Sohn teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above.
Bhas further teaches:
a setting handover component configured to hand over at least features of the customer, the moving route, and transaction information of the customer at that point in time registered in the customer service robot to another customer service robot, wherein the movement controller of the customer service robot, the information of which was handed over, continues a customer service for the customer based on the handed over information. (col 2 lines 15-40, col 4 lines 31-47 and col 15-16 lines 63-8, the user is able to enter information for an item needed on the display device in order for the smart cart to navigate the user to item)
Bhas and Sohn do not teach:
a setting handover component configured to, based on a determination that the support shopping of the customer is to be handed over from the customer service robot to another customer service robot,
However, Jeong teaches:
a setting handover component configured to, based on a determination that the support shopping of the customer is to be handed over from the customer service robot to another customer service robot, (para 57-59)
Bhas in view of Sohn teach a customer service robot that guides a user in a store.
The sole difference between Bhas and the claimed subject matter is that Bhas does not disclose handing over information from one robot to the other.
Jeong disclose handing information from one robot to the other based on customer request.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the robot of Jeong for the customer service robot in Bhas.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628